[EnergySpin]

Found it interesting so .. here it is !
Very relevant about the energy alternatives and how to weigh the risks vs benefits. Some points are also valid with respect to peak oil


Main Points:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
') * Public discussions of risk consistently overestimate dangers and undervalue the benefits we obtain by living in a complex society.
* It is difficult to modify this mindset, and there is little point in re-exploring the arguments about what is 'acceptable' as a risk, since the ground shifts constantly in terms of our perception. For example, food fads may be dangerous or beneficial at the same time, depending on the viewpoint of the protagonist.
* That benefits are taken for granted is probably a sign of a healthy mindset. But this complacency should have limits. Those who do not find anything worthy of note in the achievements of medicine should think, for example, about the disappearance of poliomyelitis from the UK.
* Safety is not a concept that can be extended to the whole of society, as what makes something safer for one group will often make it more dangerous for another. How do we generate appropriate attitudes? Can science help?
* The objectives of safe management of our environment depend on caution - the taking of heed, precaution - and the exhibition of prudent foresight. But they cannot include an indemnity - an assurance that no-one will come to harm from any action.
* Many non-scientific commentators adopt a position and accept data that support their argument uncritically - they do not examine it, nor do they look at unpalatable data. Uncritical belief is one definition of faith - and faith is not affected by argument. This is what we must attempt to change.
* Information is probably the answer, but it must be provided in a way that allows the requirements of society to be reflected in the content. We must seek agreement about the desirable outcome we wish to achieve - which environments we protect, what birds must be favoured, how long we should live. In all of these instances, some will hold opposing views.
* Acute episodes require prompt and effective responses, not commissions of enquiry.

[rockdoc123]

I could not agree more with the opinions here. Risk is a personal kind of thing....what one person sees as huge risk another might see as calculated risk or non-risk. A good example is I remember having a conversation with an American colleague who could not understand why I would ever walk around at night in places like Tripoli or Tunis or Doha etc. He percieves these countries to be very risky on a personal safety basis....but low and behold he lives in Houston, and a particularily nasty part. There are more violent crime/deaths in Houston on a weekly basis than there are in any of these places in a year or more but because he is familiar with Houston his risk tolerance for the place is quite high, being unfamilar with these other places his risk tolerance would be low.
So I suspect that the average Joe being unfamiliar with the science behind things like Peak Oil, Global Warming, Pharmaceutical complications etc. has an extreme low risk tolerance. All you need is some twit in the press overemphasing the risk and suddenly you have people in a near panic situation.
Information is the key, untainted, unopinionated and then discussion that is fair-sided on whether certain things are risks or not. Unfortunately that doesn't make for good press.

[hotsacks]

There was a time they were called 'uptight','anal',and 'repressed'.Now this PC universe calls them 'risk averse'.
Always scrubbing their hands.
Complaining about the 'quality' of everything.
Checking out all the angles of everything and deciding the only way to go is back.
History will call these years "The Age of the Obsessive
Compulsive".

[julianj]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')nformation is the key, untainted, unopinionated and then discussion that is fair-sided on whether certain things are risks or not.