Allan Mazur – författare

Energy is at the top of the list of environmental problems facing industrial society, and is arguably the one that has been handled least successfully, in part because politicians and the public do not understand the physical technologies, while the engineers and industrialists do not understand the societal forces in which they operate. In this book, Allan Mazur, an engineer and a sociologist, explains energy technologies for nontechnical readers and analyses the sociology of energy.

The book gives an overview of energy policy in industrialised countries including analysis of climate change, the development of electricity, forms of renewable energy and public perception of the issues. Energy is a key component to environment policy and to the workings of industrial society. This novel approach to energy technology and policy makes the book an invaluable inter-disciplinary resource for students across a range of subjects, from environmental and engineering policy, to energy technology, public administration, and environmental sociology and economics.

Energy is at the top of the list of environmental problems facing industrial society, and is arguably the one that has been handled least successfully, in part because politicians and the public do not understand the physical technologies, while the engineers and industrialists do not understand the societal forces in which they operate. In this book, Allan Mazur, an engineer and a sociologist, explains energy technologies for nontechnical readers and analyses the sociology of energy.

The book gives an overview of energy policy in industrialised countries including analysis of climate change, the development of electricity, forms of renewable energy and public perception of the issues. Energy is a key component to environment policy and to the workings of industrial society. This novel approach to energy technology and policy makes the book an invaluable inter-disciplinary resource for students across a range of subjects, from environmental and engineering policy, to energy technology, public administration, and environmental sociology and economics.

Given time, scientists reach consensus about the truth or falsity of a wide range of alleged hazards. Today, there is broad agreement that CFCs destroy stratospheric ozone. On the other hand, research does not support claims that electromagnetic fields from transmission lines cause a noticeable increase of leukemia. But new allegations continuously arise. Are manufactured chemicals in the environment distorting normal hormonal processes in our bodies? Are genetically modified foods a cause for concern?

Addressing one of the most vexing problems in risk policy, Allan Mazur asks how we can tell, at an early stage, how seriously we should take a new warning. To identify hallmarks that could help predict the truth or falsity of an alleged hazard, Mazur analyzes 31 health warnings raised during the 1950s and 1960s about diverse technologies, including fluoridation, DDT, cyclamate, nuclear weapons testing, and birth control pills. Among his considerations are the initial source of an alarm, the biases held by its primary ''sponsors,'' and the type of media coverage it receives. With 30 to 50 years of hindsight, he identifies characteristics - apparent from the outset of a controversy - that most effectively distinguish true warnings from false alarms. Early recognition and a timely response to a genuine hazard are important to protect our environment, health, and economic well-being. But if we act quickly and a warning turns out to be false, money is wasted, people are needlessly frightened, regulators lose credibility, and our ability to appropriately handle the next set of risks is compromised. Mazur''s findings do not provide certainty about which of today''s warnings will prove true and which will prove false. But they do help us to make informed judgments about where it is best and most reasonable to direct our worries and resources.

Given time, scientists reach consensus about the truth or falsity of a wide range of alleged hazards. Today, there is broad agreement that CFCs destroy stratospheric ozone. On the other hand, research does not support claims that electromagnetic fields from transmission lines cause a noticeable increase of leukemia. But new allegations continuously arise. Are manufactured chemicals in the environment distorting normal hormonal processes in our bodies? Are genetically modified foods a cause for concern?

Addressing one of the most vexing problems in risk policy, Allan Mazur asks how we can tell, at an early stage, how seriously we should take a new warning. To identify hallmarks that could help predict the truth or falsity of an alleged hazard, Mazur analyzes 31 health warnings raised during the 1950s and 1960s about diverse technologies, including fluoridation, DDT, cyclamate, nuclear weapons testing, and birth control pills. Among his considerations are the initial source of an alarm, the biases held by its primary ''sponsors,'' and the type of media coverage it receives. With 30 to 50 years of hindsight, he identifies characteristics - apparent from the outset of a controversy - that most effectively distinguish true warnings from false alarms. Early recognition and a timely response to a genuine hazard are important to protect our environment, health, and economic well-being. But if we act quickly and a warning turns out to be false, money is wasted, people are needlessly frightened, regulators lose credibility, and our ability to appropriately handle the next set of risks is compromised. Mazur''s findings do not provide certainty about which of today''s warnings will prove true and which will prove false. But they do help us to make informed judgments about where it is best and most reasonable to direct our worries and resources.

Newspapers and TV often report controversial risk warnings over technological innovations, scientific developments, or environmental hazards that have at their core a dispute between experts who contradict one another not only on preferred policy but also on the scientific facts that underlie decisions about public policy. Recent examples are the disputes about climate change, fracking, vaccination and autism, and genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Adversaries mobilize constituents with similar interests or ideologies, form opposing coalitions, and compete for media exposure. They articulate arguments and counterarguments. "Facts" become malleable, differently appraised by each side. Uncongenial evidence is ignored or discredited. For many adversaries, winning the policy argument is primary; evaluating the true degree of hazard is secondary. How can we determine which side’s "facts" are right and which wrong? Do news media enlighten the public or worsen polarization? Can policymakers deal with controversial science and technology more cogently than they do now?

Newspapers and TV often report controversial risk warnings over technological innovations, scientific developments, or environmental hazards that have at their core a dispute between experts who contradict one another not only on preferred policy but also on the scientific facts that underlie decisions about public policy. Recent examples are the disputes about climate change, fracking, vaccination and autism, and genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Adversaries mobilize constituents with similar interests or ideologies, form opposing coalitions, and compete for media exposure. They articulate arguments and counterarguments. "Facts" become malleable, differently appraised by each side. Uncongenial evidence is ignored or discredited. For many adversaries, winning the policy argument is primary; evaluating the true degree of hazard is secondary. How can we determine which side’s "facts" are right and which wrong? Do news media enlighten the public or worsen polarization? Can policymakers deal with controversial science and technology more cogently than they do now?