This is in addition to my already posted analysis regarding the relationship between science/scientists and the public.

(Pages 1-20 in the transcript are devoted to formal reports and questions pertaining to specific issues of the formal report.)

(Pages 21-32 are devoted to the input from the people and, in some instances, responses from the earlier speakers.)

CLAIM

There is a perception that the community based its decision for not supplying Senanus with water on the report of the consultant, supported by the majority recommendation (4-3 against water main) of the Water Advisory Task Force. Thus, the scientific expertise associated with one report predominated over the weight of the reports from the Regional Health Board, residents, and the data collected by other consultants hired by the residents themselves.

DATA and DISCUSSION

The chair of the Water Advisory Task Force M’Gonigle discredited all information other than the one provided by the consultant–whose methodology has shown to have flaws during the meeting. ()

There is a perception in the community that Loen’s report was the key factor influencing the decision by Council. ("this is our only chance to talk to this man who has made a report that influences our lives.")

The host of the meeting moved from the technical part to the "public comments and opinions." Thus, he already set up the differences between types of input. On the one side, there are technical presentations by the first four speakers. On the other side, there are the opinions of the residents.

ANALYSIS

Discourses cut up and create the world (Foucault, 1972); they embody and impose particular ways of seeing the world, which in turn are reified as we see in the way the discursive concepts impose on us. Thus, technical reports can be lend credence but opinions and comments are just that. They are constructed here as insufficient to be used as a basis for making decisions.

Foucault, M. (1972). The archeology of knowledge. (Transl. by A. M. Sheridan Smith.) New York: Harper Colophon.

DATA

The Water Advisory Task Force made a recommendation to Council largely based on the report by the consultant that they had hired. Council, in turn, decided not to support the development of a water main that would supply municipal water to the community of Senanus. The Regional Health Board recommended that Senanus be provided with a connection to the main to alleviate the recurring problems of contamination. The chief officer of the RHB reiterated that support during the meeting.

The Task Force discredited, as shown in M’Gonigle’s report, the measurements done by the Regional Health Board. It did not take into account the "anecdotal information" provided by the residents on Senanus, as became evident in the minority report presented by Rick Reeves. As a result, Loen’s scientific expertise came to outweigh all the other information in the majority report of the Task Force, which in turn swayed–if that was necessary at all–Council and the mayor.

Several individuals (Knott, Byer, Jones [as far back as 30 years ago], and Denford) hat their wells tested in the past. This information, though collected by appropriately trained consultants, has not entered the decision-making arena. These tests had shown that from initially potable water 30 years ago, the water quality had worsened to the point of showing biological and chemical contaminants that led the RHB to advise residents not to consume their water, and to use it only after considerable boiling.

Residents provided very specific "anecdotal" information that testified to the problems with the water. For example, appliances (washer, dishwasher) and pipes corrode so that they have to be replaced with a high frequency–every other year in some cases. The water also destroys plantings made by the residents both inside and outside their houses. The corrosive power of the water is so strong that it kills flowers within days. However, all this information appeared to pale against the consultant’s assessment that the

ANALYSIS

Here, too, the discourse marks what Council and the mayor should base their decisions on. On the one hand, there are the real health concerns, the "biological objectives" which were without problems in Loen’s report–based on the best time of the year. On the other hand, there are the "aesthetic objectives," which are not met for different numbers of wells even during the best part of the year. Yet, Council and listeners are instructed not to attend to these negative results, "These are given a separate category [aesthetic] because they are not a health concern." The discourse establishes a world in which only biological parameters are of concern, and therefore need to be addressed, but a world in which the chemical contaminants do not need to be addressed because they are only of "aesthetic" concern. As evidence provided by one resident clearly underscores, during other parts of the year there are additional chemical concerns, some of which (such as chromium) are recognized even by the experts as considerable health hazards.

In the questioning period, it became evident that there had been flaws in the sampling methodology employed by the consultant. Hayden provided evidence that the consultant had not tested his water at the source but after it had been mitigated by several devices. Knott argued that the consultant had sampled at a time when the water was at its best, that in his conclusion, he had not taken into account water readings that would have been made (and have been made by the RHB scientists) during other parts of the yeart.

Newspaper reports indicate that Council and the mayor have had the intention to block the water main to Senanus all along.

If this was the case, Council used the expertise and expert report in support of their most favorite decision. Science and scientific expert, who hold themselves untainted by public concerns, have become a lackey of politicians.