[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: "Political wranglings over WIPP"
Rather than a "sad comentary," I think it's a good idea for the public
to maintain a healthy skepticism for pronouncements by "experts." I'm
especially concerned when the experts claim that anyone who disagrees
with their conclusions is obviously stupid or biased.
Remember, it's the "best and the brightest" who brought us Viet Nam and
Enron.
The opinions expressed are strictly mine
It's not about dose, it's about trust.
Curies forever.
Bill Lipton
liptonw@dteenergy.com
jjcohen wrote:
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: BLHamrick@AOL.COM
> To: liptonw@DTEENERGY.COM ; radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu
> Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2003 7:57 PM
> Subject: Re: "Political wranglings over WIPP"
> In a message dated 10/20/2003 9:26:13 AM Pacific Standard
> Time, liptonw@DTEENERGY.COM writes:
>
> One key conclusion: "The book empirically proves
> that public opposition
> to a nuclear repository stems from lack of trust
> toward the government
> and the perceived risk..." [i.e. It' not about
> dose, it's about trust.
> Perception is reality.]
>
> Examples of misconceptions cited: (a) "All we
> have to do is to perform
> a really complete, objective analysis of the
> project, showing that the
> risk is low and the site is good." (b) "If we
> have any opposition, it
> must be because they don't understand."
>
> I don't understand how (b) is a "misconception." And, if
> (a) is truly a "misconception," that is simply is a sad
> commentary on the American public's average intellectual
> capacity. Barbara Barbara, (a) may be a misconception,
> but it is a useful concept for those who receive massive
> funding to do the analysis, and (b) since we "need" further
> analysis, it figures that we do not currently know enough to
> proceed. There is nothing wrong with the American
> public's mentality. They are simply drawing logical
> conclusions from the information they receive from the
> government and the media.Jerry
>