Subject: RE: let's get real/public health information
This is an extraordinarily evocative and powerful message. I agree with other commenters that the solution to the problem is as much political as it is informational -- it's unlikely that one person is ever going to be able to find a 'smoking gun' piece of information that's going to answer all the unanswered questions. (People have seen too many "Erin Brockovich" movies.) Indeed, having seen these sorts of processes from the other side, it is rare that anyone has that sort of information. (Tobacco is the major exception.) That's what makes environmental issues so challenging -- in the majority of situations, everybody is dealing with uncertainties and assumptions. One thing is for sure: the 'industrial' side of the equation needs to be supplying folks with credible information, or it's bound to lose the political battle eventually.
One related observation -- Deborah's hypothetical states that there was some sort of chemical release and that at least two kids came down with asthma right after. But her posting also talks about lots of other 'environmental' hazards (EMFs, etc.) that many people are concerned about causing various health hazards. And the orientation of this dialogue is all about 'environmental' information. BUT -- and I say this as a parent of two kids and the son & son-in-law of breast cancer survivors -- what makes kids (or adults) healthy or sick is a medical, or public health question. When someone gets sick, the most productive response is probably not to say "what environmental factor could have made me sick," and then to lose oneself in a bewildering search through stacks of data and acronyms. It probably makes more sense to talk to medical and public health professionals, and then to research medical and public health information. Otherwise you've sort of presupposed the answer to the question. Perhaps this dialogue should also ask broader questions about how libraries can help people find medical/public health information.
Date
|