[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?" 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. 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? Do they clamor at DOT to explain the working of a car engine
<BR>in "lay terms?" 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. No, Sandy, I don't buy it
<BR>anymore. 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:" 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. Moreover, policy decisions based on perceptions that are divorced from
<BR>reality are usually bad decisions, or meaningless decisions. 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.
<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. 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." 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.
------------------------------