This essay is about surveys of professionals involved in assessing chemical/toxicological risks.
Very enlightening and more sensible than what we see in the political forums and the media. These professionals are properly concerned about the political “consensus” and the fanatic influence, and would prefer more science, less hysteria.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/trevorbutterworth/2013/12/19/politics-environmentalism-beating-out-science-in-regulating-risk-say-experts/print/
As one of the scientists who works in the risk assessment field, this survey certainly has a ring of truth as far as I’m concerned (although I didn’t participate in it). It’s a far cry from the malarkey put out by, say, the global warming crowd. When asked about what influences decisions at the EPA Regional level, one Regional Administrator said, “science never influences decisions. Legal and political considerations are the major driving force for decisions here in the real world.” When a scientist uses the word “uncertainty,” they mean one thing, and when political appointees use the word, they mean something quite different. A scientist might describe error bars around values, but to a political appointee, uncertainty means, “what are the chances something or someone will come along tomorrow and make me look foolish for making this decision?”
A good number of the reports that we hear are those with the unwanted influence. If asked, most laymen would say a majority of the professionals putvout scare stories.
Reblogged this on pdx transport.