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

Re: Meeting public demand



Bill,
When the "public", especially those with impaired immunity and fear of death,
hear about persons (as now with mice) having more T-cells from a new "vitamin", who will withstand the rush for it?

Howard Long

William V Lipton wrote:

You have my best wishes for success in this endeavor.

In the meantime, try to consider how "members of the public" who don't have a PhD in nuclear or environmental science (>> 99% of the population) look at this.  How is this person supposed to  make a decision on nuclear technology, assuming he wants to make a rational decision?  On the basis of the Cohen - Field - et. al. 3 ring, LNT circus?  On the basis of the abstruse and condescending presentations on Radsafe.  I don't think so!

Of the Cohen's, I don't blame the public for trusting  Norm over Bernie.

The opinions expressed are strictly mine.
It's not about dose, it's about trust.
Let's look at the real problem, for a change.

Bill Lipton
liptonw@dteenergy.com

The opinion

RuthWeiner@aol.com wrote:

Once again, professional anti-nukes and "environmentalists" are being confused with "the public."  The real public is, of course, not of one mind on this or any other issue.  Moreover, the mass media have got us into a vicious circle: they produce what they think their consumers want, and the consumers consume what they produce.

EPA was CREATED by public pressure and regulations are promulgated after public hearings, but that does NOT mean that most people don't want EPA to do decent science -- they do.  Moreover, as a member of the public, I don't want to have to repeat all of EPA's science.  I also do not believe that most Americans want every issue decided by public referendum (this comes up from time to time) and we have many instances in which legislators or regulators acted in apparent contradiction to public pressure and did what was ethically or scientifically appropriate (civil rights comes to mind here).

My personal experience,when EPA ditched 40 CFR 191 for Yucca Mountain and eventually promulgated 40 CFR 197, was that this had nothing to do with "public pressure" and everything to do with the subtle anti-nuke bias at NAS (oh my! she dares criticize NAS!) and the overt anti-nuke biases in the Clinton Administration (and by the way, I voted for Clinton, twice, which highlights the dilemma that real actual liberals like me face).  EPA and NRC cling to these regulations and are afraid to examine them because of the continuing influence of the anti-nuclear political appointees who have now found homes in the civil service.

We are the public.  We are as much "public" as anyone else.  We need to exert pressure to change these regulations, and we need to keep the pressure on.  It's going to take a while.

Ruth Weiner, Ph. D.
ruthweiner@aol.com