[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Scientific responsibility
Amen, Barbara!
An apathetic citizenry turns the state and its assets over to the
charlatans.
Ted
Rockwell
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