Re: Talking to the "public"

[BFLOOD@SLAC.Stanford.EDU (Bob Flood)]

>>8.  The present perceptions of the public, of professionals, and of officials
>>are a direct result of being unaware of actual observations of human response
>>to radiation. The present perceptions are a result of seeing the "fitted"
>>data rather than actual data.
>
>I disagree.  The public is afraid of global warming even though it is
>unproven.  The public is afraid of many unproven "dangers" in the
>environmental.  It is difficult to site even a normal, municipal landfill in
>which the public has used every item disposed of there.  I do not share the
>belief that the public reactions are learned from scientists and that they
>can be corrected by explaining the limits of  observation.  IMHO the
>reaction is based on a personal, subjective value system, not reponse to
>factual information.  In a democracy, people have a right to be wrong.

I join in the disagreement. It seems obvious to me that worst case scenario
is the one most likely to be accepted as as the most likely (even
inevitable) by an uneducated public (uneducated in the technical issue at
hand). An excellent example is the hole in the ozone layer above the south
pole. As an ex-meteorologist I can say with confidence that the hole has
existed for the entire time that man has been able to measure ozone at high
altitudes. Consequently, we have no evidence to prove it is a new or
man-made phenomenon, that the changes in size aren't natural, etc. It is
easy to postulate bad things about the ozone layer using known (laboratory)
chemical interactions and some logical extensions, but something isn't a
scientific fact simply because the concept is plausible. Yet how many places
have you seen a scientific authority describe the ozone hole as possibly
naturally-occurring?

The more dangerous the nth sigma possibly of a given circumstance, the more
attention it will get. The more attention it gets, the more it is accepted
as the main probability. After that, it takes on a life of its own. Hence,
the idea that radiation in any quantity is lethal. Gofman is still promoting
this - the local paper (Pleasanton, CA) had a front page story yesterday
about the ex-LLNL scientist's new claims that medical xrays cause 90 percent
of all breast cancer in the US. (His reasoning is that Japanese women
experience fewer breast cancers and also get fewer xrays; therefore, the
xrays in the US must be the cause. Some science.

Problem is, people want to believe the bad stuff.
Bob Flood
Unless otherwise noted, all opinions are mine alone.
(415) 926-3793
bflood@slac.stanford.edu