|
Ruth makes a salient point here, one that I
appreciate. We are experiencing what I might put in extreme terms as a "failure
of democracy" - because 51% of the people in a democracy may be against a
particular technology is not reason enough to eradicate that technology. Many of
these folks do not really understand a technology, arguments involved with low
level effects of radiation, etc., and have been swayed by emotionally charged
arguments from groups who intentionally spread misinformation in a highly
technical area. So "freedom of speech" mixed with "high tech" mixed with
"majority rules" does not always work for setting sound public policy. I
agree that the pre-Nixonian attitude of "we are the government and we know
what's best for you" isn't right, either, but somewhere there is a more
reasonable approach than we have now. Many are fearful currently about
genetic engineering, and there may be some downsides, but if 51% of the people
don't like it, would it be right for Tom Daschle to announce that "genetic
engineering is dead" in this country, as long as Democrats control the Senate?
Is it right for the casino gambling and toursim industries to be deciding what
is an acceptable technology for disposal of high level wastes? If we
continue down this path much longer, we will be technologically - and
economically - behind the rest of the free world in very short order, and
purchasing our technology from others.
Michael G. Stabin, PhD, CHP
Assistant Professor of Radiology and Radiological Sciences Department of Radiology and Radiological Sciences Vanderbilt University 1161 21st Avenue South Nashville, TN 37232-2675 Phone (615) 322-3190 Fax (615) 322-3764 e-mail michael.g.stabin@vanderbilt.edu "Quantum Mechanics: The dreams stuff is made of"
- Steven Wright
|