Re: Attack on Env. Protection.

[isisGU@hamp.hampshire.edu]

Posting from ISIS Guest Account <isisGU@hamp.hampshire.edu>
Reply-To: ISIS Guest Account <isisGU@hamp.hampshire.edu>

Bill, Lenny, Aimee, and 'lsgeckle@aec1...' (see Aimee's July 25th message
"Re: Attack on Env. Protection") make some very good points about RABs and
technical assistance. Another small point I'd like to consider entails
risk perception, communication, and control. Yep...I'm just back from a
conference on just that, so it's on my mind! 

A great value of RABs and public participation, even in an advisory role,
is to balance public perception of the problem at installations. A
risk-communication expert tells me that if people lack control over a
given risk, they perceive the risk as TEN times worse than they would if
they had some control (yep, it's measurable). So, if a community has no
influence on their local cleanup effort, people are guaranteed to be FAR 
more anxious than they would otherwise be. 

The points I'm trying to make, concealed in this technical junk, are that:

1) 'Lsgeckle@aec1...' is right; DOD AND DOE NEED RABS. Without effective
RABs, public perception will be ruined even further.

2) RABs need info, communication, trust, and INFLUENCE. Thus RABS need
independent technical assistance they can trust. 

3) Without a sense control in communities, ruined public perception will be
accompanied by elevated anxiety. 

4) Elevated public anxiety will skew budget priorities, heighten tensions
around bases, and lead to EXTREMELY DIFFICULT work for cleanup staff,
public relations, base commanders, environmental regulator, etc. who
answer to the public. 

5) Even the Defense Science Board recommends that to maintain military
readiness in the face of increasing environmental concern, DOD should
"Actively pursue involvement with stakeholders though advisory boards." 

Jeff Green