Subject: (Leiss) Re the LEISS DOC (fwd)
Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1999 123553 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Roy L. Beavers" <rbeavers@llion.org>
To: emfguru <rbeavers@llion.org>
--------------------------------------------------
......Thank you, Dr. Leiss!! I am pleased to forward your response
to my EMF-L list (where it is likely to be circulated to some 500 or so
persons who are interested in the EMF subject).... I am also forwarding
to Dr. Leiss the paper I circulated earlier this morning, "Nothing to
Worry About," -- my exchange with Richard Woodley.....
Roy Beavers (EMFguru)......
rbeavers@llion.org.......
.....It is better to light a single candle than to curse the darkness.....
EMF-L web-site can be found at:
EMF-L archives can be found at:
..................PEOPLE ARE MORE IMPORTANT THAN PROFITS..................
.......DO YOU KNOW OF OTHERS WHO SHOULD BE ON THIS LIST???????............
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1999 11:09:49 -0500 (CDT)
From: "William Leiss, FRSC"
To: "Roy L. Beavers"
Cc: sjackson@rsc.ca
Subject: Re: the LEISS DOC
I am pleased that you have called attention to my paper, "The Internet as a
Public Information Resource."
How anyone's writing is interpreted is, of course, not controllable by the
author. But I would like to make the following points about what I INTENDED
to say:
1. Science and risk.
>Don't forget that ... as the discussion below unfolds!.... Sometimes the
>"science" of risk assessment becomes more a matter of advocacy than
>science.... Risk analysis is often used in the political and "P.R."
>milieu to defend the "trade-offs" of a particular risk as being so
>beneficial (to the public) that individual risks (it is argued) should be
>either ignored or sublimated.... (i.e., Lookout Mountain....)
Comment: Because risk (by definition) always involves uncertainty, there
will always be a variety of views on what the science "says" at any point in
time, and different interpretations of the science are advocated by various
intervenors. The same is true, only more so, with respect to risk/benefit
trade-offs, where there are many legitimate and differing views. This is
inevitable; therefore, "advocacy" is a regular feature in controversies
about risk management of all kinds.
2. Internet.
>As I read Dr. Leiss' excellent paper, he is "sounding the alarm" to his
>fellow risk analysis colleagues to "beware" of what is happening on the
>internet -- the likes of EMF-L, Wave-Guide, Bridlewwood, etc. -- that
>has created a new reality which must be understood and dealth with by
>those who practice the "art" of risk analysis communications.....
Comment: No, that's not what I meant. I think that interventions in risk
controversies by various parties is a healthy exercise of democratic
participation, and is "a good thing." The Internet makes those
interventions easily accessible to many concerned people, thus also a good
thing. However, ALL information needs to be critically evaluated, whether
it is provided over the Internet or by some other means.
I am critical of all information I get. My paper does caution readers about
Internet material, but it is also very critical of the shortcomings of what
has been provided to the public to date by governments and industry.
3. Tactics.
>In the end, you see, we are reading (below) "General Giap's treatise" on
>how to defeat the Americans in Vietnam!!!..... I wonder if Dr. Leiss'
>colleagues will believe him???
>
>I wonder if MY readers will be any more attentive to this 'insider's
>perspective' ... than were the Americans in Vietnam....???
Comment: I happen to believe that risk controversies ARE strategic contests
(the theme of one of my earlier papers, 1995, "Down and Dirty"; also of the
case studies in my books, "Risk and Responsibility" (1994) and "Mad Cows and
Mother's Milk" (1997).
Again, thanks for your attention to this. By the way, I am also responsible
for the expert panel process used by the Royal Society of Canada, including
the recent report on RF fields (I am not a scientist, so I do not
participate in the actual work of the panels themselves). My objective is
to see that expert reports are produced that are entirely unbiassed and free
of conflict of interest, i.e., are an "objective" view of the state of the
art so far as our knowledge is concerned at any point in time.
William Leiss, F.R.S.C.
Professor and NSERC/SSHRC Research Chair in
Risk Communication and Public Policy
Faculty of Management
Scurfield Hall 132
University of Calgary
Calgary, AB T2N 1N4
tel: 403-220-8579
fax: 403-284-7903
email: wleiss@mgmt.ucalgary.ca
http://www.ucalgary.ca/~wleiss/
For urgent matters leave a voice mail message on my cellphone: 403-651-8191
Archive provided courtesy of WaveGuide, http://www.wave-guide.org
Reprinted with permission of Roy Beavers, http://www.feb.se/EMF-L/EMF-L.html