Kamilla,
You may be right about that quote. I went by memory and "the memory is the
second things to go; I can't remember the first." ;-)
I don't know about the other two groups you mentioned but, if they have an
axe to grind, this often means that they tend to take certain liberties with
the facts; emphasizing some and ignoring others. It would be nice to have
some sort of clearing house, as you mention, but it is very difficult to be
totally without bias. One would have hoped that faith-based organizations
would be unbiased but the opposite is often the case. These organizations
have goals and, to attain these goals, they also tend to distort the facts.
Some suggest listening to opponents and proponents and then take the
average, but that does not work. Proponents of solar or wind power will
trot out the arguments that their energy conversion system will solve all
problems and opponents say that it won't. That leaves one with little
choice.
Your example of the fossil fuels industry touting global warming is an
interesting one because it shows how easy it is to mix facts and opinion.
It is an undeniable fact that the burning of fossil fuels produces CO2. It
is also undeniable that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It is further undeniable
that the [CO2] in the atmosphere has been increasing. So much for the
facts. It is possible, maybe highly likely, that the increased [CO2] will
result in higher global temperatures. One theory is that the increased
[CO2] will trap solar energy and cause an increase in global temperature.
Another theory is that an increase in temperature will result in increased
evaporation and increased cloud formation and that this will cause the
global temperature to drop. We simply don't know, but the money is on
global warming. The next question is one of a value judgment. Will global
warming be beneficial or detrimental? Will an increased [CO2] result in
more and rapid production of biomass? Maybe. On the other hand, it is also
possible that global warming will result in deserts moving north and in
pushing the climate that is conducible to growing food further north. That,
in itself may not be bad, providing the soil is suitable. In Canada, we
could use some global warming but you can't grow grain very well on the rock
outcrops in the Canadian Shield. Also, global warming may result in more
severe weather. No value judgment here: severe weather is no benefit to
anybody (as far as I am aware). Well, maybe to builders of mobile homes.
In the final analysis, our knowledge is insufficient to predict the effects
of increased burning of fossil fuels. Maybe, as Christians, we should ask
ourselves if we need all that energy. That's for each person to figure out
and we should be careful not to judge others unless we have walked 1.6 km in
their moccasins.
Hope this helps a bit.
Chuck
-----Original Message-----
From: Kamilla ludwig [mailto:kamillal@worldnet.att.net]
Sent: Wednesday May 30, 2001 9:22 PM
To: Vandergraaf, Chuck
Cc: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: Organizations
Chuck,
Thanks. (by the way I thought the line was "nuclear power will become too
cheap to meter" and was said in support of building more plants)
So you would consider these all advocacy groups, then? I guess that's
probably right, I was just hoping there might be some groups that would be
more reliable than others. I was asking because, for someone like me doing
bits of research and reading on their own, having a sort of "clearing house"
for information would make it so much easier.
Some years back I did received a free copy of a video put out by a fossil
fuels industry group touting the benefits of global warming (larger areas of
land will be cultivable, etc.). It was interesting to view. It also struck
me that no one seems to be talking publicly about the possible benefits of
global warming. At least if they are, they aren't getting much air time.
Kamilla
----- Original Message -----
From: Vandergraaf, Chuck <mailto:vandergraaft@aecl.ca>
To: 'Kamilla ludwig' <mailto:kamillal@worldnet.att.net>
Cc: asa@calvin.edu <mailto:asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2001 6:57 PM
Subject: RE: Organizations
Kamilla,
Good question! My understanding is that one does not have to be a scientist
to belong to the Union of Concerned Scientists; one only has to exhibit a
certain degree of concern and fork over some cash. In general, advocacy
groups tend to distort the truth by omitting data that does not agree with
their position and/or recycling statements that have shown to be
incorrect.(now where have we seen this before?) By their nature, advocacy
groups want to make a point and, to do that, they have to catch the
attention of the media and the public and that is best done by making
outrageous statements and claims and hope that the general public is dumb
enough to fall for it (we know that media is, by and large, scientifically
illiterate)
Let me give you a few examples from my area of expertise:
"highly radioactive plutonium" [most Pu isotopes have a long half life and
are therefore not very radioactive]
"plutonium, the most toxic material on earth" [one nuclear scientist had a
standing offer to eat 1 gram of Pu if a nuclear critic would eat 1 gram of
nicotine; never had any takers]
"nobody has shown a way to deal with radioactive waste." [the US and Finland
are disposing of low-level radioactive wastes and many countries (e.g.,
Canada, Sweden, Finland) have shown that high-level radioactive waste can be
disposed of with negligible risk to the population]
"Chornobyl caused many deaths and many cancers" [there were less than 50
deaths attributable to the Chornobyl accident]
Very often, these advocacy groups trot out statements like these without
backing them up. A good test is to look at some of the literature that
these groups put out and ask where they got the data, and then follow the
trail back to the source. In many cases, these groups will cite statements
made by other, like-minded groups. Try it sometime. For example, the
statement is often bandied about that "at one time, nuclear energy was
considered too cheap to meter" or words to that effect. My understanding is
that ONE person ONCE made this statement, yet it is trotted out again and
again. Another scare tactic to to make connections between something that
is opposed and something nasty: linking nuclear bombs to nuclear power (we
don't link gasoline to napalm] or Western nuclear power plants to Chornobyl
[we don't link the Goodyear blimp to the Hindenburg, or a plastics plants to
Bhopal].
It may be difficult to believe this but, IMHO, sources of "good information"
are the experts, who work in a given industry. I would much rather get
information on the safety of nuclear power plants from nuclear physicists
and nuclear engineers who know what makes these things tick than from some
activist who wants to make a point.
You may also want to question people in these advocacy groups very closely
and tenaciously. For example, if they say that wind power is cheaper than
nuclear, let them provide the evidence. If they say that the US could abide
by the Kyoto Protocol by replacing the fossil fuel plants with solar and
wind, let them show you. At least, let them provide an independent analysis
of there comparisons.
You may think that these advocacy groups can do no wrong and that it is
always better the err on the side of caution. I don't agree: if these
advocacy groups have a skewed vision of risks and benefits, they made well
force a decision on society that is based on a flawed analysis. Let me give
you a simple example: it has been argued that chlorination of drinking water
produces chlorinated hydrocarbons that are potentially harmful. Yet the risk
of having micro organisms such as E. coli in the water (which led to seven
deaths in a small town in Ontario a year ago) is greater than a postulated
and extrapolated risk of contracting cancer as a results of the chlorinated
hydrocarbons.
Hope this is of some help.
Chuck Vandergraaf
-----Original Message-----
From: Kamilla ludwig [mailto:kamillal@worldnet.att.net]
Sent: Wednesday May 30, 2001 4:47 PM
To: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Organizations
I am wondering which organizations and advocacy groups are the most reliable
sources of good information.
What can any of the listmembers tell me about, for instance:
Union of Concerned Scientists
Center for Science in the Public Interest
WorldWatch Institute
I am particularly interested in those organizations that are active in
public health. Are there any other organizations that might be better
sources for information and for possible involvement?
Also, before I forget again, I have looked around a bit for some of the
answers about our earlier discussion in GM foods, particularly the claim
about Monarch butterfly toxicity. It seems that those claims were wildly
exaggerated. Just goes to show you can't trust someone just because they
have a tenured position and a PhD after their name!
Thanks,
Kamilla
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed May 30 2001 - 22:58:51 EDT