Re: Public Information and Gresham's Law; The Public health strategy

[John Goldsmith <gjohn@bgumail.bgu.ac.il>]

Dear Radsafers: With about 30 years behind me of dealing with air 
pollution in California, Occupational pesticide risks, and currently 
microwave radiation, I offer some observations, mostly on credibility.
Most of us spend little time evaluating our credibility, and fail to 
realize its fragility.  Gresham's law (economics) tells us that debased
coinage drives sound coinage off of the market.  This is also true of 
epidemiology: poor epidemiological studies  of a topic make it much 
harder to do sound studies of the same topic. (because of both unlikely 
funding and public negativity).  So with public information.  Misleading 
or tendentious information drives good and empathic information off the 
presses and tubes. I recall the days when we (the U.S.) were still 
testing at the Nevada site and the counts for rainfall and snow in the Sierras
took a big jump.  The fact of testing  was falsely denied, and the Health 
Department said yes the counts were way above the standards, but there was 
no health risk.  That implausible combination of soothing and frightening 
statements set the Department's credibility plummeting.  
	Still over the years, public health agencies 
have kept a level of credibility that is durable and well above that of
 nuclear agencies, government and the medical profession ( or so do I 
believe --on what evidence you may well ask? ).  In places with problems 
such as Hanford and the Pacific Northwest, has there been an effort to 
bring the local public health officers into the picture of admitting past 
deceit and providing reasonable public advice?
              John Goldsmith, M.D., M.P.H., gjohn@BGUMAIL.bgu.as.IL 
              Professor of Epidemiology, Ben Gurion University of the 
                Negev, Beer Sheva 84 120 Israel
On Mon, 30 Oct 1995, ronald kathren wrote:

> Paul --
> 
> It's great to offer general criticisms, but better to provide specific
> suggestions for improvement.
> 
> Ron
> 
> 
> >G'day 
> >
> >Ron Kathren wrote;
> >>Wes -- Well put.  Ron
> >In support of Wes Dunn's comments:
> >>> This [Rich's comment] is obviously a false arguement.  The
> >>>purposes and activities of the AAHP is not necessarily the same as
> >>>how those purposes and activities are carried out OR the purposes
> >>>and activities of the officers of the AAHP.
> >
> >The proposed code of ethics demands that CHPs support the academy's
> >activities. Insofar as certification is sometimes a job requirement
> >and insofar as CHPs have gone to a great deal of time, effort and
> >expense to become certified, this proposed code of ethics should be
> >taken seriously. It is perfectly reasonable to insist that the
> >Academy be very specific as to the activities we are being required
> >to support, otherwise we are writing a blank check.  So I ask: 
> >
> >"What specific activities does the code state we are required to
> >support?" 
> >
> >I have no problem with someone distinguishing in his/her own mind the
> >difference between an activity and how an activity is carried out,
> >but Rich's interpretation that an activity is something that actually
> >takes place, is equally valid. Why not refer to these activities
> >(which Wes and Ron interpret in a passive sense) as goals or
> >functions and specify what the darn things are?
> >
> >My biggest problems with the proposed code of ethics are that it is
> >frequently ambiguous and primarily consists of positions that sound
> >nice but are little more than feel good statements. It should be
> >brief, to the point and unambiguously say what it means. If
> >reasonable people can strongly disagree as to what the meaning of the
> >code is, the thing needs to be rewritten and this appears to be the
> >case.
> >
> >N'est ce pas?  ;-)
> >
> >Paul Frame
> >
> >
>