During a discussion I was told that, "It's easy for you to be rational about this because you haven't suffered directly from chemical exposures. But people who have do not have the luxury of your rationality."

The first point is most valid; it is easier for me to be rational than someone who has been harmed. But my first hope is that my rationality not be taken for a lack of compassion or concern. The effort of developing this site is considerable, and it is driven in large part by these.

Second, these statements suggests that it is more effective for adversely affected groups, and those who work for their cause, to be irrational. I guess this depends on the goal. If the goal is to appeal to law makers to change the legislation which mandates the use of Risk Assessment, then calm, rational discourse may not be the best way to go. But if the goal is to affect the decisions of government officials who must work under legislative mandates, individuals who themselves must be rational in the development and implementation of environmental policy, then I do not think that an irrational approach will be effective. And I would also think the chemical companies which do make good-faith efforts to work with citizens' groups in crafting workable solutions to pollution management problems will be much more likely to consider opinions and suggestions when they are presented rationally.

I am most concerned that, to the extant that Environmental Justice groups take a less than rational approach, with calls for "No Risk Assessment," these groups are placing themselves in a position where they can be or are easily ignored. Because these groups do have legitimate concerns and grievances, I sincerely hope that this doesn't occur.

[Comment Form]

Return to main Environmental Justice page.