January 2003 AGGMAN Geology

Public Perception, Policy, and Permits

Not too long ago I had the opportunity to enjoy a root canal. You know the drill (pun intended). There I was, sprawled out in a chair, mouth wide open, visualizing patterns on the ceiling. My tongue was gradually going numb from the Novocain, and I could barely feel my mouth. Just as I was about to lose complete control of my tongue, the dentist asked a question: “So, Bill, what kind of geology do you study?”
“Industrial minerals,” I replied.
“Are there any of those in Colorado?” he asked.
“Well, yes. Those that we use the most of are construction materials — stone, sand, and gravel,” I answered.
The dentist said that mining those materials was okay with him — as long as they were not mined near him. He seemed pleased when he asked, “What is that called, NIMBY?”
I was about to tell him how much aggregate we use, what we use it for, and why he should be more objective about mining but, my entire tongue lost all sensation and I gave up trying to make sensible conversation.
The encounter left me wondering. Here is a college-educated person who probably had a fair amount of science, yet he only thinks about aggregate in terms of the quarry location from where it comes. So I decided to see what they taught about aggregate in college. I looked over my father’s Textbook of Geology (1932). There were 24 pages devoted to mineral resources; none about construction materials. My General College Geology (1963) had six pages about mineral resources; none about construction materials. And my daughter’s Physical Geology (1993) had 25 pages about mineral resources, with three paragraphs (173 words) about construction materials. So even if a person took an introductory geology course in college, he or she is apt to have little or no appreciation about the need for construction materials.
This observation correlates with the results of a survey conducted by Aggregates Manager to determine the challenges facing the aggregates industry (AggMan, April 2002, p. 6-8). The top five challenges related to the concern that the public does not appreciate the need for mining or the contributions that aggregate products make to our standard of living.
But the problem is bigger than that! According to a recent study undertaken by the National Science Board, “Science and Engineering Indicators, Chapter 7, Public Attitudes and Public Understanding” (2002), most Americans do not know a lot about science and technology in general. Only about half of the people surveyed know that the earliest humans did not live at the same time as dinosaurs or that it takes Earth one year to go around the sun. Approximately 70 percent of Americans do not understand the scientific process. It should come as no surprise, then, that the belief in pseudoscience is widespread and growing.
So who cares that the general public does not understand science or the scientific process, is poorly educated in critical thinking, and is comfortable believing junk science without putting it to a critical test? Ask yourself that question the next time you are in a public hearing trying to convince the public and government authorities that your application is scientifically sound and should be approved. Most of you probably will agree with the Aggregates Manager article, which concluded that the lack of understanding about the importance of aggregates has made the permitting and public hearing process an extremely onerous ordeal.
David Faigman, Professor of Law, University of California, Hastings College of Law and author of Legal Alchemy: The Use and Misuse of Science in the Law (1999 and 2002), sheds some additional light on the problem. Faigman identifies a number of challenges in the application of science in decision making. He wrote, “We have legislators and policymakers making decisions based on virtually no experience and no education in math and science.” He also pointed out that science and decision making have very different timetables, and legislators and policymakers have to make decisions without all the necessary data.
The lack of public awareness of science and the need for aggregates is just the tip of the iceberg. During the past century, events have taken place to create a bizarre set of circumstances that seriously hampers the ability of aggregate producers to meet society’s increasing demand for aggregate. Over the next few months, this column will describe some of those events, such as the growth of our cities and changes in people’s values, beliefs, and attitudes. The column will address some of the industry’s challenges and explore some successful and failed attempts to utilize geology to help guarantee access to aggregate resources.
In the meanwhile, if you want to weigh in with your opinion on the “top challenge facing the aggregate industry,” or tell me your proposed or actual solutions to the challenge, send me an email at blanger@usgs.gov.

William H. Langer is a geologist with the Mineral Resources Team of the U.S. Geological Survey.

January 2003 Carved in Stone Public Perception, Policy, and Permits				Public Perception, Policy, and Permits By Bill Langer Not too long ago I had the opportunity to enjoy a root canal. You know the drill (pun intended). There I was, sprawled out in a chair, mouth wide open, visualizing patterns on the ceiling. My tongue was gradually going numb from the Novocain, and I could barely feel my mouth. Just as I was about to lose complete control of my tongue, the dentist asked a question: “So, Bill, what kind of geology do you study?” “Industrial minerals,” I replied. “Are there any of those in Colorado?” he asked. “Well, yes. Those that we use the most of are construction materials — stone, sand, and gravel,” I answered. The dentist said that mining those materials was okay with him — as long as they were not mined near him. He seemed pleased when he asked, “What is that called, NIMBY?” I was about to tell him how much aggregate we use, what we use it for, and why he should be more objective about mining but, my entire tongue lost all sensation and I gave up trying to make sensible conversation. The encounter left me wondering. Here is a college-educated person who probably had a fair amount of science, yet he only thinks about aggregate in terms of the quarry location from where it comes. So I decided to see what they taught about aggregate in college. I looked over my father’s Textbook of Geology (1932). There were 24 pages devoted to mineral resources; none about construction materials. My General College Geology (1963) had six pages about mineral resources; none about construction materials. And my daughter’s Physical Geology (1993) had 25 pages about mineral resources, with three paragraphs (173 words) about construction materials. So even if a person took an introductory geology course in college, he or she is apt to have little or no appreciation about the need for construction materials. This observation correlates with the results of a survey conducted by Aggregates Manager to determine the challenges facing the aggregates industry (AggMan, April 2002, p. 6-8). The top five challenges related to the concern that the public does not appreciate the need for mining or the contributions that aggregate products make to our standard of living. But the problem is bigger than that! According to a recent study undertaken by the National Science Board, “Science and Engineering Indicators, Chapter 7, Public Attitudes and Public Understanding” (2002), most Americans do not know a lot about science and technology in general. Only about half of the people surveyed know that the earliest humans did not live at the same time as dinosaurs or that it takes Earth one year to go around the sun. Approximately 70 percent of Americans do not understand the scientific process. It should come as no surprise, then, that the belief in pseudoscience is widespread and growing. So who cares that the general public does not understand science or the scientific process, is poorly educated in critical thinking, and is comfortable believing junk science without putting it to a critical test? Ask yourself that question the next time you are in a public hearing trying to convince the public and government authorities that your application is scientifically sound and should be approved. Most of you probably will agree with the Aggregates Manager article, which concluded that the lack of understanding about the importance of aggregates has made the permitting and public hearing process an extremely onerous ordeal. David Faigman, Professor of Law, University of California, Hastings College of Law and author of Legal Alchemy: The Use and Misuse of Science in the Law (1999 and 2002), sheds some additional light on the problem. Faigman identifies a number of challenges in the application of science in decision making. He wrote, “We have legislators and policymakers making decisions based on virtually no experience and no education in math and science.” He also pointed out that science and decision making have very different timetables, and legislators and policymakers have to make decisions without all the necessary data. The lack of public awareness of science and the need for aggregates is just the tip of the iceberg. During the past century, events have taken place to create a bizarre set of circumstances that seriously hampers the ability of aggregate producers to meet society’s increasing demand for aggregate. Over the next few months, this column will describe some of those events, such as the growth of our cities and changes in people’s values, beliefs, and attitudes. The column will address some of the industry’s challenges and explore some successful and failed attempts to utilize geology to help guarantee access to aggregate resources. In the meanwhile, if you want to weigh in with your opinion on the “top challenge facing the aggregate industry,” or tell me your proposed or actual solutions to the challenge, send me an email at blanger@usgs.gov. William H. Langer is a geologist with the Mineral Resources Team of the U.S. Geological Survey.