Re: Meat Irradiation Note ... it's about trust

["Richard L. Hess" <lists@richardhess.com>]

At 09:12 AM 11/11/2002 -0500, William V Lipton wrote:

>   
>
> "Jacobus, John (NIH/OD/ORS)" wrote: 
>
> > It is a sad commentary when
> >
> > decisions are based on fears, and not a clear 
> >
> > understanding of the issues. 
> >
> >  
> While I probably agree with you on the issue of food
>
> irradiation, I generally feel that the public should maintain a healthy
>
> scepticism for "experts."  The "best and the
>
> brightest" got us into Viet Nam and couldn't figure out how to get
>
> us out of there.  The medical establishment was gung ho to market
>
> thallidomide.  They were also big on hormone replacement therapy.
>
>
>
> So, whenever someone with a lot of credentials and an important sounding
>
> title says he knows what's best for me, or that I'm too dumb to
>
> understand,  I generally keep my hands on my wallet and my back to
>
> the wall. 
>
>
> The opinions expressed are strictly mine. 
>
> It's not about dose, it's about trust. 


Right, and many of the people on this list wonder why radiation has a PR

challenge? I think we all feel this way to some degree or other about

processes or technologies that can have negative scenarios (even if only

in someone's imagination). 


Bill, in your signature, you sum it up, "...it's about trust."

People do NOT trust the experts whether it's irradiated food, genetically

modified food/seed/animals, nuclear power generation, transport of

nuclear waste, power line fields, wonder drugs, and--even now in some

parts of North America--water quality. 


I am a bit surprised that someone who advocates trust in every signature

(and presumably is requesting that people trust him) be so skeptical

about other experts, although I shouldn't be surprised as I feel this way

at times, too.


Why is it hard to trust the experts? One easy answer is because the

experts don't always see things the same way. For example: In the

well-covered Westerfield trial in the San Diego area, there was one

"bug expert" for the prosecution and several for the defense.

The several for the defense claimed that the bugs on the deceased girl

were incompatible with the timeline and scenario proposed by the

prosecution, but Westerfield was still convicted.


Other times, experts have "known" things for sure--and have

been wrong. For one example of the complexity of all of this, see Ruth

Weiner's reply on two of the issues mentioned.


Who to believe? Who to TRUST? Yes, it IS about trust.


How do we make this better? Can we make this better? One skeptical view

of making it better could end us in the abyss of having a state run

"religion" saying "this is the truth," so I don't

think we want to go there.


Public education is definitely beneficial, but you all have struggled

with mine (which is greatly appreciated) and I, at least, have a

science-friendly background. Imagine trying to do that with 6E9

people!


One suggestion--and that devolves more on my industry (though not my side

of it--THANK G--D) than yours--STOP with the sensational journalism!

Please (yeah, right)!


A good and thoughtful topic. Thanks!


Cheers,


Richard