Talk:Alvin M. Weinberg

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 14:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Subsections under Work at Oak Ridge

Breaking up this large section may make it more readable. Pknkly (talk) 06:38, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Y SBaker43 (talk) 03:48, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Trans-science

In 1972 Weinberg published a landmark article in Minerva entitled “Science and Trans-science”1, which focuses on the interface between science and policy matters, especially governmental policy decisions:

Many of the issues which arise in the course of the interaction between science or technology and society … hang on the answers to questions which can be asked of science and yet which cannot be answered by science. I propose the term trans-scientific for these questions since, though they are, epistemologically speaking, questions of fact and can be stated in the language of science, they are unanswerable by science; they transcend science. [Emphasis in original]

Weinberg provided several examples of trans-scientific questions and noted that they transcend science in three rather different senses: cases in which science is inadequate because it would be impossible in practice to ascertain the answers -- e.g. the effects of low-level radiation (he calculated it would take an experiment involving 8,000,000,000 mice to ascertain directly the effect of low level X-radiation) or the probability of extremely improbable events such as a catastrophic nuclear reactor accident or devastating earthquake; fields, such as much of the social sciences, in which “the subject matter is too variable to allow rationalization according to the strict canons established within the natural sciences; and cases in which the issues involve moral and aesthetic judgments – axiology of science.”

---

But I suggest there is an ongoing experiment, for 800,000,000 years or more, involving low but virtually constant radiation, of all potassium-using organisms, said to be 4000 to 5000 Bq of beta or gamma, internally, for a human being of about 70 kg. Without actually disagreeing with Weinberg as to the difficulty of ascertaining data of the complete span of low level X radiation, I believe this strongly suggests a threshold at which potassium-using organisms (All organisms?) are defended by their gene-repair mechanisms. 71.163.107.53 (talk) 02:53, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

The field of risk assessment is where trans-scientific issues have been most explicitly, formally, and deeply addressed. In 1983 the US National Academy of Sciences published RISK ASSESSMENT IN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT: MANAGING THE PROCESS. This report, called "the Red Book" provided a framework still used by the U.S. government and many others.2,3

The authors of the 1983 volume identified several dozen “components” of Risk Assessment and attempted to identify which are purely scientific, purely policy, or a hybrid. They categorize about half as hybrid. Indeed some authors have labeled the entire list of components as “trans-scientific”.4

Although the Red Book focuses on the assessment of risks arising in exposure to toxic substances, issues and techniques relating to trans-science occur in multiple fields.5 Some argue that many of the conflicts relating to climate change arise from lack of appreciation of trans-scientific issues, that is, of the nature of issues that lie at the boundary of science and policy and thus should not be decided by scientists or policy-makers alone.6

Footnotes

1 Weinberg AM. Science and trans-science. Minerva. 1972;10:209-222 http://www.springerlink.com/content/l7238385781727j7/ 2 National Research Council, Risk Assessment in the Federal Government: Managing the Process. National Academy Press; 1983. http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309033497 3 The continuing influence of the Red Book can be seen, for example, in a recent study performed for US EPA which concluded that “risk assessment … as presented in the NRC’s 1983 ‘Red Book’ report is essential to EPA’s mission to protect public health and the environment.” [See Abt E, et al., Science and decisions: Advancing risk assessment. Risk Analysis. 2010;30:1028-1036 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20497395] 4 Wagner WE. Science charade in toxic risk regulation, the. Colum.L.Rev. 1995;95:1613 http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?collection=journals&handle=hein.journals/clr95&div=51&id=&page= 5 Jasanoff SS. Contested boundaries in policy-relevant science. Soc Stud Sci. 1987;17:195-230 http://www.jstor.org/pss/284949 6 Pielke RA. The Climate Fix: What Scientists and Politicians Won't Tell You about Global Warming. Basic Books; 2010 http://theclimatefix.com/

Elevy9 (talk) 02:42, 20 May 2011 (UTC) Elevy9 (talk) 14:12, 20 May 2011 (UTC) Elevy9 (talk) 14:30, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Weinberg Foundation

This link is to the wrong Weinberg Foundation. Will check it out and correct.

Phantomnubian (talk) 04:02, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Redirect was changed on Feb. 6; corrected now. -- Limulus (talk) 08:34, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Removed book

I removed the entry for Fluid Fuel Reactors from the list of books, because AFAICS Dr. Weinberg had no part in creating it. If this is wrong, or if someone wants to put it back in another context, the citation from the LOC is:

Fluid fuel reactors. Edited by James A. Lane, H.G. MacPherson [and] Frank Maslan. Published/Created: Reading, Mass., Addison-Wesley Pub. Co. [1958] Description: xxii, 979 p. illus., diagrs., tables. 24 cm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CPWinter (talk • contribs) 20:03, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Alvin M. Weinberg/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs) 05:31, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	I fixed one overlink, and two or three minor grammatical things, but the prose is excellent, very little to fault
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	there are a couple of Books that lack numeric identifiers available from Worldcat
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Passing, excellent article, please take to ACR

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Alvin M. Weinberg. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140622033527/http://web.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev28-1/text/wbg.htm to http://web.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev28-1/text/wbg.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111022044838/http://ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev28-1/text/wbg.htm to http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev28-1/text/wbg.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111022044838/http://ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev28-1/text/wbg.htm to http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev28-1/text/wbg.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:01, 3 July 2017 (UTC)