[NatureNS] "Foreign Plant Invading Little Albro Lake" in Dartmouth...

From: "Andy Moir/Chris Callaghan" <andyandchris@ns.sympatico.ca>
To: <naturens@chebucto.ns.ca>
References: <46B06690.6040906@ns.sympatico.ca> <001201c7d4b0$19a6e890$0a02a8c0@bernard> <718BE781-0B35-4C24-9D0E-544F8EF34C4D@ns.sympatico.ca> <46B1F907.2070505@ns.sympatico.ca> <3B06113C-2D57-48D2-A211-44639C25F991@ns.sympatico.ca>
Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2007 15:41:50 -0300
Precedence: bulk
Return-Path: <naturens-mml-owner@chebucto.ns.ca>
Original-Recipient: rfc822;"| (cd /csuite/info/Environment/FNSN/MList; /csuite/lib/arch2html)"

next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects

class=3D"Apple-style-span" style=3D"border-collapse: separa
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_005E_01C7D51B.A4C314B0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Interesting comments about the media, Chris.
 "Is it any wonder that there is often so much confusion in relation to =
science or natural history stories on the part of the general public =
when the level of reportage and fact-checking by the media is so =
lamentable (or perhaps this level of accuracy is simply typical of the =
media reporting on stories in general ... :->)." =20
I recently sat through two weeks of public hearings on the proposed =
quarry for Digby Neck. (Before the hearings, I also read all of the =
6000+ pages of the Environmental Impact Statement and the rebuttals). I =
heard many scientists discussing things such as water tables, geology, =
impacts on rare plant species, and a host of other topics. Some of these =
scientists worked for the proponent.  Others worked for government.  =
Still others did "independent reviews" of the many, many issues. Most of =
these scientists didn't agree on much of anything.  Even scientists from =
various government departments couldn't agree. I don't have a problem =
with that.  But I wish if they didn't know something, they would just =
say so, rather than claiming with certainty that their particular =
conclusions are, in fact, definitive.  I make no excuses for the media =
making mistakes, but I don't have a lot of time for blaming the media =
for a lack of understanding of scientific issues, when scientists =
themselves are often as not muddying the waters as much as anybody else.
One could say that if the level of some of the scientific expertise =
demonstrated throughout the quarry assessment is any indication of the =
level of science in general, it's no wonder the public has so little =
faith in what scientists claim to be true. =20
Andy Moir
Freeport
------=_NextPart_000_005E_01C7D51B.A4C314B0
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.6000.16481" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Interesting comments about the media,=20
Chris.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>&nbsp;"Is it any wonder that there is =
often so much=20
confusion in relation to science or natural history stories on the part =
of the=20
general public when the level of reportage and fact-checking by the =
media is so=20
lamentable (or perhaps this level of accuracy is simply typical of the =
media=20
reporting on stories in general ... :-&gt;)."&nbsp; </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>I recently&nbsp;sat through two weeks =
of public=20
hearings on the proposed quarry for Digby Neck.&nbsp;(Before the =
hearings, I=20
also read all of the 6000+ pages of the Environmental Impact Statement =
and the=20
rebuttals).&nbsp;I heard many scientists discussing things such as water =
tables,=20
geology, impacts on rare plant species, and a host of other =
topics.&nbsp;Some of=20
these scientists worked for the proponent.&nbsp; Others worked for=20
government.&nbsp; Still others did "independent reviews" of the many, =
many=20
issues.&nbsp;Most&nbsp;of these scientists didn't agree on much of=20
anything.&nbsp; Even scientists from various government departments =
couldn't=20
agree.&nbsp;I don't have a problem with that.&nbsp; But&nbsp;I wish if =
they=20
didn't know something, they would just say so, rather than claiming with =

certainty that their particular conclusions are, in fact, =
definitive.&nbsp; I=20
make no excuses for the media making mistakes, but I don't have a lot of =
time=20
for blaming the media for a lack of understanding of scientific issues, =
when=20
scientists themselves are often as not muddying the waters as much as =
anybody=20
else.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>One could say that if the level of some =
of the=20
scientific expertise demonstrated throughout the quarry assessment is =
any=20
indication of the level of science in general, it's no wonder the public =
has so=20
little faith in what scientists claim to be true.&nbsp; </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Andy Moir</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Freeport</FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>

------=_NextPart_000_005E_01C7D51B.A4C314B0--

next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects