Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Who's To Blame When The Public Misunderstands Science? - The Scientist - Magazine of the Life Sciences

Who's To Blame When The Public Misunderstands Science? - The Scientist - Magazine of the Life... Repeatedly over the past few years, the American public has been subjected to a litany of catastrophe - to predictions of impending disaster that are claimed to be unique to modern civilization. The oceans are dying, the atmosphere is poisoned, the earth itself is losing its capacity to support life. The reported "hole" in the ozone layer is the most recent scare. Cancer, generally blamed on man-made chemicals, is rampant - so the doomsayers say. Warnings that in the past came from the pulpit and called for eternal punishment in the sulfurous fires of hell have been replaced by equally dire predictions that come from alarmist environmentalists who call for spending billions of dollars in order to avoid doom from the sulfurous effluents of industry. The anticipated catastrophes are our own fault, of course, blamed on the greedy and perfidious nature of modern man. Is it true? As with so many issues that involve technology, the answer is yes - and no - probably rather more "no" than "yes." What are our real environmental concerns? Cancer-causing chemicals? Radiation, including radon? Carbon dioxide, ozone, and the "greenhouse effect"? Recall that, with the exception of childhood leukemia (always tragic, but http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png The Scientist The Scientist

Who's To Blame When The Public Misunderstands Science? - The Scientist - Magazine of the Life Sciences

The Scientist , Volume 4 (8): 17 – Apr 16, 1990

Who's To Blame When The Public Misunderstands Science? - The Scientist - Magazine of the Life Sciences

The Scientist , Volume 4 (8): 17 – Apr 16, 1990

Abstract

Repeatedly over the past few years, the American public has been subjected to a litany of catastrophe - to predictions of impending disaster that are claimed to be unique to modern civilization. The oceans are dying, the atmosphere is poisoned, the earth itself is losing its capacity to support life. The reported "hole" in the ozone layer is the most recent scare. Cancer, generally blamed on man-made chemicals, is rampant - so the doomsayers say. Warnings that in the past came from the pulpit and called for eternal punishment in the sulfurous fires of hell have been replaced by equally dire predictions that come from alarmist environmentalists who call for spending billions of dollars in order to avoid doom from the sulfurous effluents of industry. The anticipated catastrophes are our own fault, of course, blamed on the greedy and perfidious nature of modern man. Is it true? As with so many issues that involve technology, the answer is yes - and no - probably rather more "no" than "yes." What are our real environmental concerns? Cancer-causing chemicals? Radiation, including radon? Carbon dioxide, ozone, and the "greenhouse effect"? Recall that, with the exception of childhood leukemia (always tragic, but

Loading next page...
 
/lp/the-scientist/who-s-to-blame-when-the-public-misunderstands-science-the-scientist-7PPWLq60kw

References

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher
The Scientist
Copyright
© 1986-2010 The Scientist
ISSN
1759-796X
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Repeatedly over the past few years, the American public has been subjected to a litany of catastrophe - to predictions of impending disaster that are claimed to be unique to modern civilization. The oceans are dying, the atmosphere is poisoned, the earth itself is losing its capacity to support life. The reported "hole" in the ozone layer is the most recent scare. Cancer, generally blamed on man-made chemicals, is rampant - so the doomsayers say. Warnings that in the past came from the pulpit and called for eternal punishment in the sulfurous fires of hell have been replaced by equally dire predictions that come from alarmist environmentalists who call for spending billions of dollars in order to avoid doom from the sulfurous effluents of industry. The anticipated catastrophes are our own fault, of course, blamed on the greedy and perfidious nature of modern man. Is it true? As with so many issues that involve technology, the answer is yes - and no - probably rather more "no" than "yes." What are our real environmental concerns? Cancer-causing chemicals? Radiation, including radon? Carbon dioxide, ozone, and the "greenhouse effect"? Recall that, with the exception of childhood leukemia (always tragic, but

Journal

The ScientistThe Scientist

Published: Apr 16, 1990

There are no references for this article.