R-I-S-K (don’t shudder- react!)

No Gravatar

Most of you know I live in Metropolitan DC.  So, whatever happens in/to/from the Federal government is LOCAL.  Like the shutdown- that cost the DC area more than $ 220 million each and every day in business.  Since there are some 5 million folks living in the Metropolitan area, that’s $ 50 not spent by every man, woman, and child.  OK, that doesn’t sound too bad.  But, there are about 225,000 businesses in the area.  Which means the average business took a hit $ 1000 a day. That is a significant number if you are a small business- even if you are a large one.

Why do I bring that up?  Because there are lots of folks who think this recent shutdown wasn’t a big deal.  Or, that it was a pretty good thing.  And most of those folks are the same ones who think climate change is fake.  A lot of them think vaccines are bad for you, too.

Science is fundamental.  And, just because some guy or gal who never took science (or understood it) is now employed as a reporter for the Daily News (not THE Daily News, per se, I am taking generically here) does not qualify that person to really explain what is going on.  For example the new report issued by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (yes, that’s their name) purportedly had no new real information, according to most newspapers.  (You recall NOT seeing the headlines that such a report came out, right?)

Well, folks these are scientists that were writing this report.  And when a scientist uses using italics, they are trying to get your attention.  Think of a frying pan landing on your head.  Virtually certain.  Very likely.  Unequivocal.  Unprecedented.  Those are NOT terms used in conventional scientific reporting.  (You would know this if you read 400- 500 technical documents each week.  Remember your high school chem lab?  When you could never write, “I added 25 grams”; instead it was “25 g was added to”.)

I’ve written about Russell Train, the former EPA Administrator.  He was asked by Congress if something was going to make the water ‘safe’.  His answer was absolutely brilliant.  He said that it was a political decision to determine what is ‘safe’.  Was that 1 in 1,000 deaths, 1 in 100,000 deaths, 1 in 1,000,000 deaths… (You get the idea.)  If that person would be so kind as to define safe, Mr. Train would make sure that the water met that requirement, if Congress would also appropriate the necessary funds to achieve that goal.

That’s the point.  It’s a matter of risk.  There is significant minority of politicians that don’t want Americans to worry about the risk of global warming.  More importantly, they don’t want to appropriate the necessary funds to combat the problem nor do they want their business sponsors (oh, wait ‘lobbying constituents’) to have to spend money and change their practices.

It’s why some folks (I had an argument with one just the other day) stridently (and, without facts, I might add) protest bioengineering and GMO (genetically modified organisms)- but jump immediately to claims that nanotechnology, which manipulates fundamental properties (that’s a chemical term which means the character and state of the item)- is safe, when it is far more dangerous.  Why certain religious folks insure that vaccinate their infants for HepB (hepatitis B), which is a sexually transmitted disease, but rail against HPV (human papillomavirus) inoculations.

It’s the job of the scientist and technologist to outline the risks.  It’s the job of a leader to understand what that risk means and cause actions to occur to mitigate those risks. After all, our cars can travel at 200 km/hr (120 mph) with ease- but the drivers can’t handle that risk, so we set speed limits much lower.  That’s a prudent reaction to risk.  So, would fixing our climate problem be…

Share this:
Share this page via Email Share this page via Stumble Upon Share this page via Digg this Share this page via Facebook Share this page via Twitter
Share

15 thoughts on “R-I-S-K (don’t shudder- react!)”

  1. More on my favorite subject–risk. ISO standards, etc. were created for organizations to learn to have quality management, ie leaders, in order to pre-determine what risks there might be, how to prevent them if possible and what to do if one occurs. This kind of system works for small businesses up to international organizations. What do you supposed would happen if we tried applying some of these lessons in government bureaucracies? I can’t think of anything else that would work, short of dissolving the whole thing and starting from scratch which would totally cause the disintegration of the entire country. See what a short freeze did to the country. So starting over from scratch isn’t going to work.
    Ann Mullen recently posted..Are You Prepared to Care for Your Parents?

    1. Actually, the legislature does NOT do this sort of analysis, Ann. But, the regulators (part of the Executive branch) does. I remember performing analyses of various processes with and without various treatments- and then discerning which proposed the greater risk. And, the projected costs. And, then there was the tradeoff between costs and risks. (Like one can determine how much ONE life is worth…)

  2. How some politicians can live with themselves is beyond me. My dad doesn’t believe in global warming. There is so much propaganda out there and so many story spinners that it’s hard to know the real truth.

    1. It’s all about money, Suerae. And, global warming is an absolute fact. The only question is how much our personal behavior is amplifying it- and whether a short-term change (instead of a long term change) will solve the problem.

  3. Mitigating a risk is always more complicated than what it seems. In the UK, there is a big debate about an injection, the MMR. The problem is that it created a new outbreak of Measles. In short, not only were those who were not doing the vaccine taking a risk, but they were also endangering others.
    Muriel recently posted..A Challenging Month

    1. So, I had to check that out Muriel…
      The MMR has NOTHING to do with the new outbreak of measles. That is related to folks refusing to participate in the inoculation program. Exactly the kind of problem that sentient beings should not encounter… They have elected to risk their children’s well-being for myths they hold without foundation.

Comments are closed.