|
To Trust or Not to Trust and Who Pays? Alfred A. Brooks OREJC Approval |
In dealing with government agencies, such as the Department of Energy (DOE), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC), etc., a significant portion of the public expresses a profound distrust of the agency. Nowhere is this more clearly expressed than in the DOE's Environmental Management program. It is expressed in meetings, in E-mails, in Letters to the Editor, Guest Columns and in reports. All the agencies involved are accused of conspiracy, lying, fraud, uncaring, ignoring complaints, not providing care, suppressing adverse data, controlling the newspapers, the doctors and the medical laboratories, controlling and coaching past contractor employees, controlling anyone that receives compensation originating with DOE, etc. Never before have I had the honor of associating with such scurrilous characters. In fact, in the eyes of many, I am one of them.
The level of distrust is too
large to be casually dismissed. The distrust of the agencies and
"scientists" is also extended to a distrust of "science"
itself, its results being summarily dismissed in favor of the results of a more
emotional belief system. The nationwide effort to discredit science is the
continuing attack on
We will examine the problem of trust and who pays as it applies to the DOE/EM program by discussing the plausibility of their several components:
Who Is Distrusted?
The first and most intensely distrusted agency is the Department of Energy since they are responsible for all that has gone wrong and all that has allegedly gone wrong on or downstream from the reservation which is of course true, DOE is accountable for the unintended results as they are the "owner/operators" of the plants. But the doubters take the position that DOE has done these things deliberately always callous and in some cases, malicious and dishonest. This is true for both worker exposures and alleged public exposures. The fact that some of the contamination and exposures took place under the U S. Army, the Atomic Energy Commission, and the Energy Research and Development Agency seems to make no difference; the sins of the fathers are readily assigned to the children. Any organization within DOE such as HHS whose responsibility is to address these health problems is also not to be trusted as they always lie to protect DOE. The same is said of independent agencies such as ATSDR because they will lie to protect the government and are often paid for their services from the DOE budget. Any state agency, such as the Tennessee Department of the Environment and Conservation or the Tennessee Department of Health, that concurs with the federal government's findings as they are often paid by DOE. Individuals who have worked for DOE or one of its contractors are also tainted and are DOE toadies. A longer list is given in the "conspiracy" section.
One could legitimately conclude that these people were anti-government or anti-nuclear power or weapons, or anti-science. And often they are. However, a closer look will reveal that there are several persons that have worked for DOE contractors and who subscribe to higher levels of risk than do the main stream citizens, these persons are deemed trustworthy by the doubters. There seem to be two agendas that benefit from discrediting DOE: 1) the anti-nuclear,(power or weapons) agenda, and 2) the compensation for adverse health effects agenda (both worker and residents). Many of the people who speak about DOE and the environmental remediation program in a highly derogatory manner are also advocates of one or more compensation programs or actions. (Return to agendas)
Let there be no mistake, there are DOE workers whose health has been adversely affected by workplace exposures and they should be compensated promptly. Workers exposed to beryllium dust and miners exposed to silica dust are the best established cases; there may be some others. The delays experienced in the worker's compensation program are absolutely intolerable. However not all worker and regional illnesses are due to workplace exposure.
None of the above should be taken to mean that DOE operations have been without errors, subject to deserved criticism and deserving of civil penalties. DOE employs humans and humans often lack knowledge and make mistakes but they usually aren't malicious. However the actions including compensation should be based on established facts and not perception unsupported by any facts.
The Grand Unified Conspiracy Theory (GUCT), as some people call it, is all encompassing and is offered as an explanation of why Oak Ridge workers and near by residents suffer from serious illness they don't seem to know about. [One conspiracy advocate stated that Oak Ridgers suffered a two decade reduction in longevity but the excellent health care we received restored the lost years.]
The conspiracy goes something like this:
a) DOE and its contractors deliberately expose humans to harmful pollution and employees are forbidden to talk. DOE publicly lies about the problems. It is true that DOE does not publicly discuss national security or business confidential information.
b) Doctors in Oak Ridge are not permitted to make diagnoses which may have a workplace or contaminant cause. There was one exception to this but he was "run out of town" after a confidential medical hearing. The local hospitals and the regional medical laboratories are compelled to not report health conditions arising from Oak Ridge Reservation origins. Exactly how DOE exercises this influence is never quite clear.
c) The local newspapers, especially the Oak Ridger, are controlled by DOE and do not print any stories adverse to DOE. The one exception is the Nashville Tennessean who finds by talking to interested neighbors that Oak Ridge is inundated by "toxic rain" and worse. Their interview selection method consisted of "Do you know of any sick people who blame the DOE for their illnesses".
d) DOE does not report reactor accidents, run-away nuclear reactions, serious environmental releases or nuclear excursions in the waste pits. This belief persists in spite of news releases and publicly available, formal reports on the incidents.
e) Analyses of the samples taken by the several environmental programs are censured, likewise the health physics measurements taken at the three plants. The flyover data has been biased by not measuring areas "known" to be polluted. The samples of Scarboro soils taken by the Florida Agricultural and Mining University (FAMU) were biased and DOE paid for the study. It is true that the samples were biased on the high side by taking samples at locations with high background radiation.
f) Any other government agency, such as, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, which are designated by Congress to provide services to DOE in certain areas and are to be compensated by DOE are like wise part of the conspiracy, lying and withholding information, like DOE does. Also included are the occupational clinics nationwide that are supported in part by ATSDR, etc. Actions of the several federal and state overview agencies are suspect especially if they are funded directly or indirectly by DOE.
g) The conspiracy must involve several thousand people in just the Oak Ridge conspiracy alone. It is remarkable that DOE has the administrative skills needed to coordinate all of these disparate activities and biased information and yet have trouble coordinating their own internal programs.
The GUCT would be humorous if it were not the prime reason for the rejection of any information which might not support the agendas of the doubters. Any information supporting a DOE-favorable position is summarily dismissed as conspiratorial. Further logical discussion is useless and, without further discussion, the doubters feel justified their claim is justified.
The doubting members of the public could be suffered in silence except: a) they are members of the public who have sincere, if sometimes ill-founded, concerns and thus deserve attention and answers, and b) they are politically active and enable decisions based on political or emotional reasons which should have been made on technical grounds. They have defeated nuclear power in the United States and have gone a long way toward defeating long-term waste disposal in the west. Both of these decisions are high risk options. Fossil fuels are very polluting and temporary spent nuclear fuel storage is more dangerous than long-term isolation.
After all is said and done, the conspiracy theory is like the elephant in the living room: It is noticeable, it makes a mess of the rug, it dominate all discussions, and there's not much to be done about it except to keep on reminding every one that the elephant is there and to be careful. Seriously, if no one makes the effort to show that the conspiracy does not exist, then by default its existence becomes the public's perception of reality and discussions based on established facts are in vain
Return to: Opinion Control
The Suppression of Adverse Data
One of the principal components of the conspiracy theory is the alleged suppression of adverse information or the reporting of false data, that is, fudging the data related to the workplace and the environment. Let us assume for the moment that DOE wishes to do this: How big a task is it? The data taken on the ORR comprises several tens of millions of samples taken by numerous organizations such as TDEC, EPA, TDH, TVA, and many others, Over the years countless individuals have been involved and NO ONE TALKED. Successful, secret collusions by hundreds of people are rare. Not only did no one talk, but they coordinated the fudged data with all the individual from all the organizations to maintain the consistency of the fudged database .For example, if the data in surface water in ORNL has been fudged to cover up a spill then the outflow of White Oak Lake must be fudged to preserve the fraud. Also any measurement of the plume in the Clinch River as well as the K-25 water intake must be "adjusted". All the tap water samples at K-25 will need fudging as well as any urine and blood samples. We now have involved many organizations and many individuals in a massive, coordinated fraud No wonder these samples cost so damn much. Truth be known, DOE does not have the management skills to do it.
DOE is not perfect, they make mistakes. They do not always sample what they should. They lose a sample now and then. They don't always explain the whole picture to the public in lay terms, but they do not practice mass dishonesty with data.
Another component of the conspiracy theory is the alleged control of opinion. Again "official" opinion is expressed by a dozen or more organizations and hundred of individuals. There certainly is control of classified information as well as business confidential. Some administrations have been more restrictive of political information, such as, budget data, than other administrations. Budget information has always been presented in a confusing format and probably always will be but the problems are clearly those of confusion not opinion control. Opinion control should, if well done, produce uniform opinions and this has not been the case. The outstanding example was the difference in official comments of two EPA offices on the matter of the recent ATSDR Uranium Public Health Assessment. The difference caused quite a stir and revision of EPA procedures.
The only case I have seen of "opinion control' was the DOE and contractor risk assessors publicly adhering to the ultra-conservative risk assessment policies of the EPA (and privately refuting them). Call it "opinion control" if you wish but it is really much worse: Congress has established by law and regulation what should be a science-based procedure. For the most part, opinion within DOE seems to be freely expressed and distributed in the usual manner.
As far as the control of public opinion is concerned, no one would suggest that Frank Monger is "controlled". The Oak Ridger has both pro and con DOE articles and the letters to the editor cover both ends of the spectrum. I have written about 85 letters to the editor, some pro DOE and some anti-DOE, and no one from DOE has told me what to say or criticized what I said.
There is much more evidence of muddled bureaucracy than opinion control.
Belief Systems Replacing Science
Science is a data-based system with other defining characteristics, such as, predictability. Faith-based belief systems are authority-based. Many, but not all, faith-based systems are religions, some with extensive, formal authorities both individual and texts. The belief systems to which we refer here could be called: a personal belief system because the individuals appoint themselves or some other individual to be the authority. The adherents to these belief systems tend to call science just another belief system no different from their own thus giving them a freedom of choice about which they believe.
In the past science has clashed with faith-based belief systems and both have suffered as in the "Dark Ages". Even today there is a clash as "Creationism" in the guise of "Intelligent Design" is being forced by political methods in 46 states on public school curriculums as a science deserving equal presentation time as evolution. Good science is not the result of political pressure in the state legislatures.
It is legitimate to ask, "Why is this importance to the Oak Ridge problems of distrust?" The answer lies in the statement to one of the past central figures in the debate: "Science is just another belief system and is no more valid than mine." This places a new dimension on the discussions: They are no longer about what the data indicates or what approximations have been made but about whose belief system is superior and should be the basis for decision making. It's like arguing the virtues of pork chops and oranges with a strict vegetarian: oranges don't squeal when you pick them.
Still, when all is said and done, "Can science prevail as a point of view if no one is willing to present its point of view to the lay public?"
Hanlon's Razor
Hanlon's Razor[1] says, "Do not ascribe to cupidity what can adequately be explained by stupidity." Or in more common terms, there are more badly informed people than ill-intentioned people. In applying Hanlon's Razor, it must be remembered that people with the same data may come to different reasonable explanations based on different prior experience; differences of interpretation do not always mean differences in motivation or intent. On the other hand, those who make "ad hominem" attacks against their opponents seldom give much thought to how the opponent reached their conclusion from the data nor do they look at all the data themselves. It is far easier to discredit a person that a set of data.
Related Link:
For the similar effects of distrust on the medical treatment of cancer see American Cancer Society Survey.
[1] A razor is a term in logic and is a criteria that allows a clear distinction between individuals or items.