ENVIRONMENTALISTS VS
SCIENTISTS: TWO CASE STUDIES
IN SCIENCE
COMMUNICATION
Tiziana Lanza
Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia. Via di Vigna Murata, No 605, 00143 Rome, Italy. Tel: +39-06-51860218, Fax: +39-06-5041303, E-mail: Lanza@ingv.it
Abstract
How much environmentalists influence people when
science is involved? To this aim I will consider institutional communication
and press clips available online, related to two case studies in my country.
The first case, Geological Carbon Sequestration (GCS), is a high-tech solution
internationally studied to solve global warming, almost unknown to Italian
public. The second case concerns the possible health
effects of exposure to Electro-Magnetic Fields (EMF) that in Italy has been the
cause of deep controversies among environmentalists, scientists and politicians.
Both these cases show an important influence of environmentalists on people and
institutions and a great difficulty for scientists to address their message to
society.
Key words: Environmentalists, scientists,
public
Fig1
Different options for GCS
Introduction
In August 2002
I have published an article in a popular science magazine concerning GCS, a
technique studied by my colleagues of Fluids Geochemistry Laboratory [1]. The
international scientific community is studying the possibility of storing in
some geological sites (see Fig.1) the CO2 coming from sources
contributing to global warming. Satisfied by my article, my colleagues invited
me to attend an outstanding conference in Kyoto, where, in the controversial
case of ocean storage, scientists themselves were presenting case studies in
public and institutional perception. Environmental organisations were
considered the main cause of experiments’ refusal [2][3]. When
invited to a workshop on risk perception in the framework of an Italian project
devoted to the safeguard of men and environment from the EMF[4], I found again
scientists facing the difficulty of addressing their message to people. From my
part, I had to conclude that an honest confrontation with the environmental
organisations is a good starting point, and now I am glad to realize that
Legambiente is promoting the debate[5]. In the present paper, I will analyse
some records obtained browsing the web with the aim of better investigating the
relation between the two and their influence on people. The research is limited
to online records and to my country.
Methodology
To obtain items
I have visited the online press archive of the Italian Chamber of Deputies and
of the Civil Protection; the Italian web sites of Greenpeace, WWF and
Legambiente; those of ENEA, INGV and Enitecnologie, and the site of “Elettra
2000”, a consortium of scientists working on EMF health effects. For further
records I have sometimes used google. In the second case, I have considered
highly significant the year 2001 since the Italian parliament was discussing
the Law on Elettrosmog, while a legal controversy between Radio Vaticana and
the citizens of Cesano (Rome) was creating a big political turmoil.
Main
results
With
a totality of 23 significant scores in the time-interval going from the year
2000 to April 2004, it is clear that GCS is not so much popularized, even if from
one of the few clips scored we learn that experts are ready to choose sites
where conducting experiments. It is noteworthy that only in Greenpeace web
site, we read that they will contrast the introduction of the “Clean carbon”
and consequently this technique. Most of the scores come from online magazines.
I have summarized the different positions (see Table 1 below).
|
Favourable |
Not Favourable |
|
Press clips scored in my
research are mainly positive about it.
|
Online records are also
negative
Environmentalists affirm that:
|
Table 1 reports the
different opinions on GCS obtained in the present research. Note that
environmentalists’ opinions come mainly from other countries.
Concerning
elettrosmog, it is really controversial the message addressed to people. A
confrontation between the Legambiente Faq[6] and those of “Elettra 2000”
experts[7] is illustrative of the two different approaches (see Table 2 below).
Legambiente
|
Elettra
2000
|
|
What
risks are associated to people’s exposure to EMF? … Some studies have shown a high
incidence of cancer and leukaemia compared to the normal referring average in
population living near radio and television systems and exposed to electric fields
major than 60V/m… What
steps can I take to reduce my exposure to EMF? … Avoid cellular phone with
integrated antennas. |
Are
there evidences of long-term effects due to Radio Frequencies Radiations
(RFR) exposure? According WHO, in the present scientific
literature there is no evidence that RFR exposure reduces human life
expectation, or causes cancer… Cellular phone with integrated antenna are more dangerous than the
traditional ones? No. Shape and dimensions of
cellular phones are not fortuitous…in cellular phones with integrated
antennas the best performance can be obtained that way. |
Table 2 shows some
deeply contrasting answers to similar Faq.
An
analysis of the press clips scored in the time interval going from 1999 to 2003,
shows that newspapers have emphasized the political debate and the legal
controversies between citizen committees and antennas and radio basis owners.
In March 2001 a letter signed by outstanding scientists has clearly introduced
their point of view in the communication addressed by the press to the public.
The letter content is well reported by an American journalist [9]. I have
summarized the main arguments in the following Table 3:
|
Scientists |
Environmentalists |
|
·
The WHO does not even list EMF among
the 385 agents clearly causing cancer ·
The 40 per cent of cancers is due to
unknown causes ·
There is also an elettrosmog business
based on environmental issues |
·
Italy has a sad supremacy: 60.000 radio
and TV antennas compared to the 10.000 in the USA ·
We should avoid what happened with
studies on lung cancer caused by asbestos exposure: Law arrived 40 years
later with many victims |
Table
3
Conclusion
Why in Italy there is not a public concern on GCS? The answer
is that since environmentalists are not taking so much care about it, nobody
worries and the press can be positive. On the other hand, Elettrosmog
controversy shows that environmentalists have driven the political debate even
if scientists have taken a public position. The limits for the level exposure
in my country are the most severe. Compare, for instance, for RFR (Radio, TV,
Cellular phones) the 6V/m for Italy and the 60V/m for France, Germany and Great
Britain. If it is generally accepted the influence of the media on people’s
risk perception, the relation between the media and the environmental
organisations towards the public requires more attention in the future to
promote a debate where scientists could also be efficaciously involved.
References:
1)
Lanza, T. (2002). Un sequestro per salvare il pianeta.
Newton, (8) 121-126
2) Haugan
P.M. (2003). On the production and use of scientific knowledge about ocean
sequestration. In J.Gale-Y.Kaya (ed)
The 6th International Conference on
Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies,
(pp. 719-724), Kyoto.
3)
De Figueiredo, M.A., Reiner, D.M., and Herzog, H.J.
(2003). Ocean carbon Sequestration: a case study in public and institutional
perceptions. In J.Gale-Y.Kaya (ed)
The 6th International Conference
on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies,
(pp. 799-804), Kyoto.
4)
University of Rome “La Sapienza” (2003, March). Giornata di Studio “Comunicazione e percezione della scienza e del rischio”
retrieved from http://www.emprotect.enea.it/html/Eventi/Conclusi/Convegno_14_03_2003/
5)
Cini, M (2003). Relazione introduttiva.
University of Rome (2003, April). L’Ambientalismo
e la scienza: nemici o alleati? Retrieved from http://www.legambiente.com/documenti/2003/0422RelazioneCiniAcqua/cini.php
6)
Legambiente (2002) Elettrodomande
sull’inquinamento elettromagnetico retrieved from http://www.legambiente.com/documenti/2002/0117_elettrodomande2002/elettrodomande.php
7)
Raccolta di
domande risposte a cura del Comitato Scientifico di Elettra 2000 retrieved from http://www.elettra2000.it/faq/faqe2.htm
8)
Trofimov, Y. (April 10, 2001) Italian scientists attack
politicians for supporting “electrosmog” Law.
Wall Street Journal retrieved from http://www.cidis.it/articoli/cem/italian_scientists_attack_politi.htm
Paper presented at the
8th International Conference on Public Communication of Science and Technology,
Barcelona, June 3-6, 2004, http://www.pcst2004.org/