• Home
  • News
  • Research
    • Research Overview
    • Transboundary Air Pollution
    • Einstein's Opponents
    • Einstein Film
    • Collaborative Projects
  • Teaching
  • Exhibitions
  • Publications
  • Talks
  • CV
  • Contact
Milena Wazeck

Book review of Wissenschaft und Demokratie (Science and Democracy) published.

4/15/2014

 
Find my review of Wissenschaft und Demokratie, edited by Michael Hagner, in Isis, Vol. 105, No. 1 (March 2014), pp. 198–199.
Online availble at JSTOR (login required).

Upcoming talk: Thursday, June 12, AESS 2014 Annual Meeting, New York, NY: How to (not) quantify an environmental problem: Disagreement about the extent of lake acidification in eastern North America in the 1980s

4/11/2014

 

Upcoming talk: Thursday, February 13, Twentieth Century Think Tank, Department of History and Philosophy of Science, Cambridge, UK: Acid fallout: the 1980s US scientific and political debates on the atmospheric transport of sulphur dioxide

1/25/2014

 

Upcoming talk: Saturday, November 23, HSS Meeting, Boston: What is "severe damage"? Facts and values in the U.S.-Canada debates on lake acidification

10/14/2013

 
Damage to aquatic ecosystems caused by lake acidification was one of the best-documented effects of acid rain, and had been investigated in the U.S. and Canada since the early 1970s. In 1987, the U.S. National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program (NAPAP) concluded that only “a small fraction” (NAPAP 1987: I-8) of lakes in North America have been acidified. The Canadian acid rain program RMCC attacked this report to be “misleading, flawed, and incomplete” and asserted that not “some”, but “numerous” lakes have been acidified (RMCC 1987: 5). Why did scientists in the US and Canada come to different conclusions about the extent of lake acidification in North America?

I discuss several reasons for this dispute, including disagreements about the appropriate way of measuring lake acidity (pH value versus acid neutralizing capacity, ANC), and about the appropriate reference value for pH or ANC. I show that the disagreement about reference values raised complex questions of what biological damages are observed at certain pH and ANC levels. My talk points out that U.S. and Canadian scientists did not only disagree about at which pH or ANC values noticeable or severe damages occur, but also about what a “noticeable” or “severe” damage is. I argue that the debate over lake acidification involved deep disagreements about values that were hardly made explicit, but that substantially influenced the creation of facts about the extent of lake acidification.


    Archives

    April 2014
    January 2014
    October 2013

    RSS Feed

Proudly powered by Weebly