For a long time, I have been concerned with these, and other questions, for which there was no apparent answer. No solution. The application of the scientific method to test hypothesis(es), as is commonly employed in the natural sciences, just wasn’t going to cut it.
My search for scientists exploring these same questions triggered my participation with the @Risk project. Context for my involvement is also important here, and so I must digress. Before I joined Calian, I previously worked on a large and comprehensive environmental risk assessment for the Canadian Nuclear Laboratories. It used to, and still does, drive me crazy that nuclear environmental risk is held to a much different standard than literally every other form of environmental contamination. For non-nuclear contamination to exceed their respective environmental standards, there is strong scientific evidence to support the potential risk to humans. For nuclear contamination to exceed standards, only the perception of cumulative risk to humans needs to be exceeded. This made informed risk communication to the public stakeholders inherently far more complex.
Pendant longtemps, je me suis intéressé à ces questions et à d’autres pour lesquelles il n’y avait apparemment aucune réponse. Pas de solution. L’application de la méthode scientifique pour vérifier les hypothèses, telle qu’elle est couramment utilisée dans les sciences naturelles, n'irait pas marcher.