Risk Communication and Dow Corning verd

[JMUCKERHEIDE@delphi.com]

This is silly, and untrue.

> Tony Cox writes
> >>... If evidence can be explained clearly to a non-specialist, then
> it is unlikely to be wrong.
> -- AMEN!

Does "con", "fraud", "bunko", "propaganda", "bumper-sticker mentality", "Ponzi 
scheme", "Savings & Loan bonds", "telemarketing boilerroom", not to mention
"lie", mean anything to you?  All succeed by "explaining clearly to a
non-specialist"   :-) 

"Explaining clearly" is important.  It has nothing to do with being "true", or 
"unlikely to be wrong" . 

(How about:  "Ollie North", "Pat Buchanan", "Ralph Nader", "John Gofman", "Joe 
McCarthy", "Warren Sinclair", "Adolph Hitler?",  etc. etc... [ insert your
favorite here ]   :-) 

<snip> 
> Cheers!
> Tom Field  http://www.fplc.edu/tfield/tgf.htm
> Franklin Pierce Law Center

Regards, Jim Muckerheide
jmuckerheide@delphi.com
Radiation, Science, and Health