Re: Scientific responsibility

[BLHamrick@AOL.COM]

In a message dated 6/20/2003 4:39:57 AM Pacific Standard Time, liptonw@DTEENERGY.COM writes:


> I am especially disturbed by those who so quickly classify a decision with which
>
> they disagree as "criminal."  I often disagree with decisions by others, but do not
>
> do that.  You should keep in mind that, while science can develop risk estimates,
>
> it's a societal, i.e. political, decision on what level of risk to accept in any
>
> situation. You may think the money is wasted, but society may decide that it's
>
> worthwhile.  If you disagree, you should use the political process, not condemn
>
> those who don't agree with you.  It's called democracy.



I would agree but for the fact that in California there is a non-profit group that provides such gross disinformation to the press, the public and the legislators that the "people" do not have an opportunity to make an informed decision.  The agency that should be called upon to provide expertise to the legislators has remained relatively silent in the face of over two years' of misinformation in the papers, on TV, and in legislative briefings.  I can only surmise that the personal political ambitions of the elected and appointed officials who control the information flowing from that agency have seduced them into this relative silence.


The employees are not free to speak on behalf of the agency, and appear to be either too intimidated or too apathetic to speak out on their own personal time.  How are the "people" ever to know that they are being fed half-truths and hysterical exagerations about the biological effects of low-level radiation, if the only information available is from the likes of Gofman?


You can't rely on the political system to carry out the will of the people if the people are intentionally kept in the dark by that system.


Barbara