[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Commissioner Dicus speaks on the public's perception about Radiat ion Pro...



- --part1_ca.12f83c66.27f6b421_boundary

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"

Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit



Who are "the public" and what are "their own terms?"  Actually, I am a member 

of the public! There are many things discussed by the news media that I don't 

know much about: economics is a good example.  If I really want to know, I 

try to inform myself -- I don't insist on economics couched in baby-talk and 

I certainly don't complain about the use of jargon (and don't tell me 

economists don't use jargon).



>From another point of view: how many people know how their automobiles 

engines work?  Do they clamor at DOT to explain the working of a car engine 

in "lay terms?"  I could go on and on in this vein, but l will just finish by 

saying that we in the scientific community have beaten our breasts and cried 

"mea culpa" quite enough and I believe we have gotten sucked into this 

attitude by the clamoring of the anti-nukes.  No, Sandy, I don't buy it 

anymore.  DOE has bent over backwards in the past 10-12 years to "explain 

things so the 'public' understands" but the yammering never lets up, so I 

suspect it.



Re "perception as a cottage industry:"  Paul Slovic's first paper on risk 

perception was a real breakthrough and I think we all learned something from 

it, but the repeated "research" that, for example, asks people what they 

associate with terms like "nuclear waste dump" is tiresome and yields nothing 

new.  Moreover, policy decisions based on perceptions that are divorced from 

reality are usually bad decisions, or meaningless decisions.  In real life, 

when decisions matter, people (even members of the "lay public") make them 

rationally, and on the basis of reality and not just unrealistic perception.  

People perceive whatever is convenient or comforting for them to perceive. I 

recommend to you the editorial by Malcolm Gladwell in the New Yorker magazine 

of January 11, 1999.  I will only quote one passage: " The difference between 

what 'might be' and what 'is' -- which in scientific circles is all the 

difference in the world, does not appear to amount to much among the rest of 

us..... we want science to conform to a special kind of narrative simplicity: 

to begin from obvious premises and proceed, tidily and expeditiously, to a 

morally satisfying conclusion."  It is this "morally satisfying conclusion" 

(e.g., it's the DOE facility 20 miles away that is responsible for my liver 

disease, because DOE tells lies and is generally bad) that is too often the 

stuff of risk perception.







Ruth Weiner, Ph. D.

ruthweiner@aol.com



Ruth Weiner, Ph. D.

ruthweiner@aol.com



- --part1_ca.12f83c66.27f6b421_boundary

Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"

Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit



<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><FONT  COLOR="#008000" SIZE=2>Who are "the public" and what are "their own terms?" &nbsp;Actually, I am a member 

<BR>of the public! There are many things discussed by the news media that I don't 



<BR>know much about: economics is a good example. &nbsp;If I really want to know, I 

<BR>try to inform myself -- I don't insist on economics couched in baby-talk and 

<BR>I certainly don't complain about the use of jargon (and don't tell me 

<BR>economists don't use jargon).

<BR>

<BR>From another point of view: how many people know how their automobiles 

<BR>engines work? &nbsp;Do they clamor at DOT to explain the working of a car engine 

<BR>in "lay terms?" &nbsp;I could go on and on in this vein, but l will just finish by 

<BR>saying that we in the scientific community have beaten our breasts and cried 

<BR>"mea culpa" quite enough and I believe we have gotten sucked into this 

<BR>attitude by the clamoring of the anti-nukes. &nbsp;No, Sandy, I don't buy it 

<BR>anymore. &nbsp;DOE has bent over backwards in the past 10-12 years to "explain 

<BR>things so the 'public' understands" but the yammering never lets up, so I 

<BR>suspect it.

<BR>

<BR>Re "perception as a cottage industry:" &nbsp;Paul Slovic's first paper on risk 

<BR>perception was a real breakthrough and I think we all learned something from 

<BR>it, but the repeated "research" that, for example, asks people what they 

<BR>associate with terms like "nuclear waste dump" is tiresome and yields nothing 

<BR>new. &nbsp;Moreover, policy decisions based on perceptions that are divorced from 

<BR>reality are usually bad decisions, or meaningless decisions. &nbsp;In real life, 

<BR>when decisions matter, people (even members of the "lay public") make them 

<BR>rationally, and on the basis of reality and not just unrealistic perception. &nbsp;

<BR>People perceive whatever is convenient or comforting for them to perceive. I 

<BR>recommend to you the editorial by Malcolm Gladwell in the New Yorker magazine 

<BR>of January 11, 1999. &nbsp;I will only quote one passage: " The difference between 

<BR>what 'might be' and what 'is' -- which in scientific circles is all the 

<BR>difference in the world, does not appear to amount to much among the rest of 

<BR>us..... we want science to conform to a special kind of narrative simplicity: 

<BR>to begin from obvious premises and proceed, tidily and expeditiously, to a 

<BR>morally satisfying conclusion." &nbsp;It is this "morally satisfying conclusion" 

<BR>(e.g., it's the DOE facility 20 miles away that is responsible for my liver 

<BR>disease, because DOE tells lies and is generally bad) that is too often the 

<BR>stuff of risk perception.

<BR>

<BR>

<BR>

<BR>Ruth Weiner, Ph. D.

<BR>ruthweiner@aol.com

<BR>

<BR>Ruth Weiner, Ph. D.

<BR>ruthweiner@aol.com</FONT></HTML>



- --part1_ca.12f83c66.27f6b421_boundary--

************************************************************************

You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,

send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu  Put the text "unsubscribe

radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.



------------------------------