Survey: Who Do You Trust?

I would suggest it's a combination of the first three. Governments do have review agencies, and I believe that they have a better ability to identify and react to potentially dangerous situations. However, I find that they often also react way to late, and are beholden to stakeholders other than voters, citizens and residents. The second, I feel is the best bet. Medically or scientifically trained minds are better able to parse through complex scientific and statistical information and provide a good synopsis of the relevant data to a neophyte. That said, easy access to a doctor or professor is not always easy to come by. The third option is good, however is also comes with a number of caveats. What you read and research is highly variable. If you go by everything you read on the internet you'll be swayed, potentially by any large number of conspiracy theorists, crackpots, and generally poorly thought out arguments. If you're able to do good research - sticking to peer reviewed, journals or professionally run websites with active editing and updates you'll probably be fine. That said, if you're not medically or scientifically trained it might be difficult to obtain an accurate understanding of what you read - and consultation with someone who tackles these issues for a living might be necessary.

Good question. Trust is almost sacred. You could have give us a few more options, but I like the way this works. We need to develop that deep sense of intuition, that tells us what is safe and what is not.

All and none of the above, really. In most cases the scientists and engineers have at least some idea what is going on, but the news and government rarely report scientific and safety information accurately. Some websites can be trusted, and I consult these often. But most can't, or are only sometimes accurate. Trying to look up information myself by going to the original source can be tough, because often the original sources are very technical. Doctors can be good, but some are in the pockets of drug companies. Professors sometimes receive funds from industry, but they generally will tell you what they really think.

The key is to look at as many sources as you can, but keep your eyes open. Use what facts and principles you know and are sure of to judge the rest, and be especially on the lookout for unstated assumptions and inferences.

That said, most of the things we worry about are not that significant compared to the safety hazards we've already overcome as a society, or the ones we accept without protest. How many people here in the states do you know how have died of or lost a relative to smallpox, measles, or malaria? We rant to each other about how dangerous cell phone radiation is as we talk on one while driving. We fret quite publicly about nuclear power plants while smoking. We panic about SARS and bird flu and terrorist attacks but most of us ignore global warming. I'm glad BPA is on the way out, as there are safer and equally inexpensive alternatives. Now let's turn our attention fully to concerns that ought to be more pressing.

WHOM do you trust?

Trust no one.

Jack Dawkins, stop watching the X-Files. It's rotting your mind. ;)

I use some version of the precautionary principal. I doesn't have to be something my grandma had for me to trust it, but generally if I hear anyone saying something is bad, I tend to believe them (with the exception of WiFi signals)

I don't agree with this sentiment that if it has been around for my great grandmother, it has been safe. Mercury amalgam dental fillings have been around for a long time slowly and silently causing brain and nervous system damage for generations, and the Romans used lead for cookware and plumbing; nothing can be presumed to be safe simply because it has been around for a long time, because even present unsafe items will eventually reach the grandfathered status of mercury amalgam fillings and lead pipes if industry lobbyists have their way. Each item must be evaluated for its own risks, regardless of how long it has been around.

Let me add also that asbestos has also been around long enough to be in widespread use during the time of our great grandparents.

. . . oh, and who can forget: in the 20's, there were companies advertising "sanitized tape worms" as a weight loss method--just swallow their eggs! Ugh! I hope my point is clear; being around in widespread use for a long time does NOT clear something as being safe.

i vote, essentially, all of the choices. . .

My vote is on me and me alone.You can only rely on yourself.Other will always fail at some point.I never rely on failures.