Abstract: Maintaining soil fertility and sustaining or increasing crop yield is of worldwide importance. Many factors impact upon the complex biological, chemical and physical processes which govern soil fertility. Changes in fertility caused by acidification, declining levels of organic matter, or P and K status may take many years to appear. These properties can in turn be affected by external influences such as atmospheric pollution, global change, or changes in land management practice. Long-term experiments provide the best practical means of studying changes in soil properties and processes and providing information for farmers, scientists and policy makers. This paper shows how the experiments run at Rothamsted in southeast England continue to provide data which are highly relevant to today's agriculture and wider environmental concerns. Examples are given of how crop yield is affected by soil organic matter, by pests and disease and by P nutrition. The effect of atmospheric pollution on soil acidity and the mobilization of heavy metals are also examined. The need for making better use of existing long-term experiments is stressed. Key words: Soil fertility, sustainability, long-term experiments, global change

Abstract: Studies on crop production are traditionally carried out by using conventional experience-based agronomic research, in which crop production functions were derived from statistical analysis without referring to the underlying biological or physical principles involved. The weaknesses and disadvantages of this approach and the need for greater in-depth analysis have long been recognized. Recently, application of the knowledge-based systems approach to agricultural management has been gaining popularity because of our expanding knowledge of processes that are involved in the growth of plants, coupled with the availability of inexpensive and powerful computers. The systems approach makes use of dynamic simulation models of crop growth and of cropping systems. In the most satisfactory crop growth models, current knowledge of plant growth and development from various disciplines, such as crop physiology, agrometeorology, soil science and agronomy, is integrated in a consistent, quantitative and process-oriented manner. After proper validation, the models are used to predict crop responses to different environments that are either the result of global change or induced by agricultural management and to test alternative crop management options.Computerized decision support systems for field-level crop management are now available. The decision support systems for agrotechnology transfer (DSSAT) allows users to combine the technical knowledge contained in crop growth models with economic considerations and environmental impact evaluations to facilitate economic analysis and risk assessment of farming enterprises. Thus, DSSAT is a valuable tool to aid the development of a viable and sustainable agricultural industry. The development and validation of crop models can improve our understanding of the underlying processes, pinpoint where our understanding is inadequate, and, hence, support strategic agricultural research. The knowledge-based systems approach offers great potential to expand our ability to make good agricultural management decisions, not only for the current climatic variability, but for the anticipated climatic changes of the future. Key words: Simulation, crop growth, development, management strategy

Abstract: In today's society there is evidence of a culture of the 'empowered consumer' -- an image of the consumer as a citizen rather than a subordinate. In fact, human rights language is increasingly coming to the fore in the consumption debate. The consumer has been allocated rights by the United Nations whereby all human beings are born free and equal and have civil, political, economic and social rights (McGregor 44). However, as citizens we also have responsibilities of an environmental and social concern. Food retailing and equality of shopping provision is one such concern. Food is a basic right. According to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights everyone has a fundamental right to be free from hunger and have access to safe and nutritious food. Social exclusion refers to those in the population who are unable to participate in economic, political, social and cultural life. Social exclusion is different from, but related to, poverty since it further marginalises the most disadvantaged -- for example, those who cannot access a large supermarket. In keeping with the rights/responsibilities language, the consumer has a basic right to food and the retailer has the social responsibility to supply the needs of the consumer. It is in this respect that food is an ethical issue and has social justice implications. Inability to consume, or have access to, sufficient food of nutritional quality is a global concern. In North America the issue is one of 'food insecurity' or 'food poverty' due to inadequate finance to purchase sufficient food. In the United Kingdom the same problem arises within the context of access to food stores. This is identified as a 'food (shopping) desert', where due to restricted access social exclusion can arise. The term 'food deserts' was first used by the Low Income Project Team of the Nutrition Task Force in 1996 and was succinctly defined by Tessa Jowell (Government Health Minister) in 1997 when she stated that a food desert was an area "where people do not have easy access to healthy, fresh foods particularly if they are poor and have limited mobility". The term 'food desert' is an emotive one referring to a unique tool of social polarisation and exclusion (Lang 5). The issues compounding the problem include low income, locational policy of supermarkets with the acquisition of edge-of-town / out-of-town sites, consumer mobility, car ownership levels and food availability. This research study focuses on Northern Ireland -- a region of the UK on the periphery of Europe. The Province of Northern Ireland (Ulster) is a sparsely populated (122 people per km²), predominantly rural area with the highest unemployment and poverty statistics in the United Kingdom. Similarly, Northern Ireland has a proportionately high degree of non-car ownership (35%) which further complicates the equation since shopping is increasingly becoming a car-borne activity necessitating transportation to edge-of-town superstores. Those not able to avail themselves of large edge-of-town superstores are being socially excluded, since inner-city areas are becoming denuded of food stores. Those that do exist usually have a limited range of food items, usually non-perishable, or are specialist shops stocking high priced items. It is the aim of the study to identify the characteristics, extent and location of food deserts in both rural and urban areas of Northern Ireland. It is a particularly apt time to do so since Northern Ireland is experiencing a 'retail revolution' with the arrival of the major UK grocery multiples and subsequent situational policies to locate off-centre. Similarly, there are plans to curtail out-of-town developments which has been viewed by some smaller retailers as "too little, too late". With the above in mind, it is a timely study for Northern Ireland. Multiple research tools of both a qualitative and a quantitative nature have been employed including consumer focus groups, shopping diaries, comparative shopping exercises, consumer questionnaires and retail interviews. This will enable sufficient validation of results. The focus groups provide qualitative depth (Colquhoun 39) and serve to highlight the issues of shopping inequality from the point of view of different consumer groups which could be identified as potentially vulnerable in the food poverty stakes; the elderly, the disabled, the unemployed or low income families, lone-parent families and females in general; to whom falls the responsibility for provisioning the household, organising the kitchen and doing the household's cooking (Murcott 11). Basically, food is gendered -- women are mainly in charge (Vaines 13). The respondents in this study demonstrate exactly that point since 77% of the sample were female and reported that they were responsible for household shopping. This point is particularly prevalent with regard to access to cars. In fact over 50% of women in 1991-1993 either lived in households without a car or were non-drivers in a household with a car. Similarly, although there is a rising proportion of women who work they still do most of the shopping and spend twice as much time as men provisioning the household (Piachaud & Webb 18). Ultimately, anything that affects the purchaser also affects the purchasing experience -- in this case physical access to the foodstore. Comparative shopping exercises illustrate the availability and price indices of food and reiterate the price differences between the smaller independents, the local corner shops and the supermarkets. Initial research using the British Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food's "Low Cost, Healthy Diet" (Leather 75) provides evidence of a cost differential of £1.41, or a 26% cost penalty by shopping at a corner store rather than a superstore. Availability among corner shops similarly compared unfavourably with the supermarkets, with the smallest stores offering minimal fresh fruit and vegetables and regularly offering no 'economy' branded equivalent to an established manufacturer's brand. This supports previous research which found that in areas where small shops do exist they offer only a limited overpriced range of processed foods (Elliott 5), and it is generally accepted that those who can shop at supermarkets can generally benefit from lower prices and more choice (Piachaud & Webb 32). The benefits of supermarkets are not therefore available to all. Shopping diaries further illustrate this point with the dichotomy existing where the lower-income consumer shops more frequently and locally than does her higher-income counterpart and it is these same consumers who patronise the smaller, often more expensive corner shop. Many consumers like the convenience of large supermarkets where they have access to a vast range of items and do not mind paying premium prices on some items for this convenience. Supermarkets do not offer low prices on all items, but do stock economy lines as well as premium priced items. The consumer questionnaire provides some quantitative analysis and statistical weight to the data and was analysed using the χ-square test on SPSS for Windows Version 8. With the χ-square test the important detail is the significance level (reported as a p-value). A p-value of less than 0.05 indicates that the two groups are significantly different at a confidence level of 95% -- in other words, it can be concluded that the author is 95% certain that the result is statistically significant and free from error. Four areas of the Province were sampled -- two rural and two urban. The sample was 77% female and the median age group fell between 45 to 54 years. The social class status was skewed towards the lower socio-economic classes and only 12% fell into social classes A or B. The mean household income was £151 to £200 per week. The survey was interviewer-assisted and pointed to some interesting correlations between levels of satisfaction with store location and distance travelled, product choice and the decision to continue shopping in the town centre. Thirty percent of the sample stated that they shop at off-centre complexes and 70% of the sampled households shop in the town centre or closer to home. This sample also provides evidence that shopping is largely a car-borne activity with 58% of the sample using the family car. Journey distance is significantly influenced by degree of satisfaction with locality: p 〈 0.01 and is supported with the evidence that 64% of the respondents stated that they shop less than fifteen minutes from home. Similar relationships exist between reported satisfaction with locality and differing degrees of satisfaction for product choice: p 〈 0.01. A significant bias similarly exists between those who continue to shop in the town centre after the advent of the UK multiples into Northern Ireland in 1996 and those who do not: p 〈 0.05 with a bias towards those continuing to shop in the town centre reporting high satisfaction levels. Ultimately, perceived adequacy of shopping provision influences satisfaction with store locality: p 〈 0.05. Although the majority of respondents' weekly shopping is conducted at a multiple there is still an identified need for the local corner shops and independents since approximately 29% of respondents buy essentials like bread, milk and other basic grocery provision there. In fact, 98% of those surveyed reported that every town centre should have a food store, and 82% noticed a reduction in the number of food stores locally in recent years. In a concluding open question in the survey attitudes towards off-centre supermarkets were gauged. Responses ranged from positive in nature ("better parking facilities") to indifferent ("I never bother with them") to negative ("they [out-of-town supermarkets] only suit people with cars" and "they hurt the small shopkeeper"). From a retail management point of view, the multiple stores perceive (or want the consumer to believe) that they have a "social responsibility" but suggest that it should be a coalition between retailers and councillors to rejuvenate the town centres and it is not their sole responsibility. The corner shops argue their business position has survived but allude to the fact that the migration to out-of-town sites by the supermarkets has "created a void in the town centre". The issue is complex. While it is true that the multiples have brought shoppers a number of benefits -- price, choice and quality -- they have also both directly (siting shops outside town centres and in high income areas) and indirectly (undermining the economies of small, local outlets) increased costs on disadvantaged consumers in terms of time, physical effort and transport. This has led to a degree of social exclusion amongst certain consumer groups, although this was not quantitatively expressed as significant via the medium of the questionnaire in this preliminary study. It should be remembered that food and mealtimes are imbued with social and cultural meaning (Lang 27) and that "food is a vehicle for social control" (7). In fact food desertification has been likened to the "food equivalent of disconnecting the water supply" (27) and initiatives should be considered to alleviate food poverty and rejuvenate town centres throughout the Province. A multidisciplinary approach is necessary with input from retailers, councillors, health promotion personnel and education bodies to bring about a policy to eradicate this form of social exclusion and disadvantage. References Colquhoun, A. "Food Retailing in Transition: Memories of Traditional Grocer Shops in the 1950s." Strugnell and Armstrong. Elliott, V. "Food Deserts Threaten Health of Poor and Old." Sunday Times 5 Nov. 1997: 5. Lang, T. "Running On Empty." Demos Collection 12 (1997). 25-7. ---. "Food Education and the Citizen: Whose Responsibility?" Strugnell and Armstrong 7. Leather, S. "Less Money, Less Choice: Poverty and Diet in the United Kingdom Today". Your Food: Whose Choice? Ed. National Consumer Council. London: HMSO, 1992. 72-94. McGregor, S. "Globalising Consumer Education: Shifting from Individual Consumer Rights to Collective Human Responsibilities." Strugnell and Armstrong 43-52. Murcott, A. "Is It Still a Pleasure to Cook for Him? Social Changes in the Household and the Family." Strugnell and Armstrong 11. Piachaud, D. and J. Webb. The Price of Food: Missing Out on Mass Consumption." London: London School of Economics and Political Science, 1996. 32. Strugnell, C. J. "Food Deserts: Fact or Fiction." Nutrition and Food Science 6. MCB UP. 349-50. Strugnell, C.J. and G. A. Armstrong, eds. Consumer Education: An International Dimension. Conference Proceedings of the XIXth International Consumer Studies and Home Economics Research Conference. Belfast: University of Ulster, 1999. Vaines, E. "The Sacred Nature of Food: A Family Perspective" Strugnell and Armstrong 13. Citation reference for this article MLA style: Sinead Furey, Heather McIlveen, Christopher Strugnell. "Food Deserts: An Issue of Social Justice." M/C: A Journal of Media and Culture 2.7 (1999). [your date of access] 〈 http://www.uq.edu.au/mc/9910/deserts.php 〉 . Chicago style: Sinead Furey, Heather McIlveen, Christopher Strugnell, "Food Deserts: An Issue of Social Justice," M/C: A Journal of Media and Culture 2, no. 7 (1999), 〈 http://www.uq.edu.au/mc/9910/deserts.php 〉 ([your date of access]). APA style: Sinead Furey, Heather McIlveen, Christopher Strugnell. (1999) Food deserts: an issue of social justice. M/C: A Journal of Media and Culture 2(7). 〈 http://www.uq.edu.au/mc/9910/deserts.php 〉 ([your date of access]).

Abstract: This internal dosimetry meeting described the derivation of dose-per-unit-intake values, current ICRP thinking on the subject and state-of-the-art biokinetic and dosimetric models. In the context of screening and monitoring overall programmes and specific techniques used within the nuclear and medical fields were described. John Stather (NRPB) opened the meeting with The Work of the ICRP in Developing Dose-per-unit Values for Radionuclides. John outlined the recent work of the Internal Dosimetry Task Groups of Committee 2 in developing a series of documents giving inhalation and ingestion dose-per-unit-intake values for both the public and workers. The work had involved the application of the new respiratory tract model; the choice of appropriate gut absorption ( f L ) values for radionuclides in food and for workplace chemical forms; the development of age-dependent biokinetic models and the specification of excretion pathways. John reported that within the next two years Committee 2 is expected to finalise a revision of publication 54 giving (for selected radionuclides) bioassay interpretation information based on the new biokinetic models. The long term aim is to comprehensively review the biokinetic and dosimetric models for workers and to provide information in one document that is appropriate for both dosimetry and for bioassay interpretation. The New ICRP Lung Model and its Applications was described by Alan Birchall (NRPB) who had kindly stood in at the last moment for the published speaker. A summary of the new model was presented and compared with the ICRP 30 model. Alan described the fundamental difference in approach in the two models, i.e. the ICRP 30 model calculates only the average dose to the lungs, whereas the new model takes account of the presumed differences in radiosensitivity of respiratory tract tissues and calculates specific tissue doses. The new model is more flexible, wider in approach and compatible with later scientific evidence. It can readily incorporate information related to the subject (age, activity, health status) or the exposure (particle size, chemical form). Finally the new model is detailed enough for dosimetry purposes. The third speaker Robert Mairs (Department of Radiation Oncology at the CRC Beatson Labs) widened the discussion to internal dosimetry in the medical field with his paper on The Implications of the Microscopic Distribution of Internal Emitters for Dosimetry and Radiotoxicity. He described how tumour seeking molecules conjugated to radionuclides are used to provide targeted radiotherapy. The current work suggests that short range emitters are well suited to the treatment of circulating tumour cells whilst beta emitters are superior in the treatment of subclinical metastases or macroscopic tumours. Also clinical strategies using combinations of radio conjugates in targeted radiotherapy were well supported. David Taylor (University of Wales) continued on an applied subject The Metabolism and Dosimetry of Radiopharmaceuticals. Radiation doses received by patients following radiopharmaceutical administration (covering a wide range of 99 m Tc-complexes and of natural metabolites and drugs labelled with 11 C, 18 F, 123 I and other nuclides) may range from 〈 1 to 〉 20 mSv per patient per investigation. David pointed out that ICRP in publications 53 and 62, had begun to issue dosimetric models and dose-per-unit-intake values for the most commonly used radiopharmaceuticals. However current dosimetric practice assumes uniform distribution of the radionuclide in the organs and tissues. Today, with radiopharmaceuticals increasingly being designed to deposit preferentially in small areas the question of non-uniform uptake and retention represent new challenges for the future development of radiopharmaceutical dosimetry. Following a break for lunch Tony Gibson gave a historical account of Limiting Intakes of Radionuclides 1940 - 1985. The presentation outlined the early history of internal exposures, the earliest being exposure of miners in 1400, to the Manhattan Project 1940 - 45 and the post war years from 1946 - 1957. Quantification of Internal Dosimetry in ICRP Publications 2, 10 and 10A were described followed by a description of the ICRP 30 respiratory tract model. Tony's concluding point was that with the increasing sophistication and complexity of dosimetric models the possibility of carrying out calculations by hand has now effectively gone. Following this historical interlude, the meeting moved onto the current monitoring programmes used in the nuclear and medical fields. Alan Brither (BNFL) presented Design and Operation of a Screening Programme for Internal Contamination. The BNFL Sellafield statutory monitoring programme employs air sampling supported by urine sampling and in vivo monitoring (plutonium being of prime concern). In addition to the statutory programme, routine monitoring is also carried out for reassurance and to permit the assessment of received dose should the need arise. Indicators of accidental exposure are built into normal operations and routine monitoring designed to assess dose following suspected accidental intakes. The importance of worker cooperation in the success of any monitoring programme was stressed. To conclude, Alan looked to the future technical challenges to ADSs with the introduction of new models and the need to assess doses to progressively lower levels. On a similar theme Richard Birch (AEA Technology) presented The Interpretation of Excretion Measurements for Internal Dosimetry. He described the general principles involved with the interpretation of bioassay data focusing on the occupational exposure to long-lived radionuclides, such as plutonium. The types of monitoring available, i.e. air sampling, bioassay sampling and in vivo monitoring were identified followed by the main steps in the dose assessment procedure. To illustrate two practical examples were provided, the first outlining the steps taken following a single high urine result (incident) and the second following a high routine annual result. The presentation concluded with a summary of the key issues in a biological sampling regime. The final speaker of the day was Cathy Griffiths (Royal Hallamshire Hospital, Sheffield) on the Monitoring of Radionuclides in Hospital Employees. Cathy outlined the results of a survey of 25 nuclear medicine departments on their use of specific radionuclides and the monitoring of the hospital employees that was subsequently performed. The radionuclides generally considered for internal monitoring are 99 m Tc, 125 I, 131 I, 8l m Kr, 133 Xe and 3 H. The availability and use of thyroid monitoring following the use of 131 I for management of an overactive thyroid gland and air monitoring following lung ventilation scanning using 133 Xe, 99 m Tc DTPA aerosol or 8l m Kr were described. Generally doses from both types of studies were found to be in the µSv range. Overall the meeting proved to be informative and a useful forum for the exchange of ideas. A transcript of the meeting is held by the Society for Radiological Protection. Eileen Cowling Science, Policy and Risk: the Royal Society's conference on 18 March 1997 at Carlton House Terrace, London John Adams gave the opening presentation in this follow-up to the 1992 conference, but I missed it because of transport problems. Fortunately he has written a book ( Risk , UCL, 1995 ISBN 1-85728-068-7) and, along with the other presentations, his script appeared in the Times Higher Education Supplement of 14 March. The proceedings were available on the internet at http://thesis.newsint.co.uk - but whether they will still be there in June is uncertain. The most eye-catching element in Adams' presentation was clearly the concept of `virtual risk' - by which he meant risks that have great uncertainties about them. To quote the THES article `Virtual risks are products of the imagination that work upon the imagination. We do not respond blankly to reality, we impose meaning upon it'. Predictably, Adams gave BSE and global warming as examples of virtual risks and suggested that there is more to dealing with them than getting the science right. If the day had a theme, it was this. Themes apart, I was alarmed to find that the Davy safety lamp had actually caused more accidents than it prevented because it made people exploit more hazardous mines. I had always seen it as a kind of Albert Schweitzer among inventions. Tim O'Riordan from the University of East Anglia produced some evidence that the public do not greatly trust scientists to give them information on risks and have a marked distrust of Government scientists. In a survey of people in Norwich it was found that the most trusted sources for this kind of information were family, then friends. Scientists from environmental pressure groups were almost as reliable as friends and doctors were close behind. Government came bottom - as you feel it must - but religious organisations did particularly badly. So if you are worried about genetic manipulation give your Aunt Gladys a ring; don't bother the bishop. You will not be alone. Well, not if you live in Norwich. The main conclusion was that, where we are subject to uncertain risks, the fairness and integrity of the consultative process we go through before any decisions are made is as important to acceptance as any scientific information. This O'Riordan called `civic' science. I would call it `politics' myself because if politicians aren't making decisions about uncertain alternative futures I don't know who is unless it's managers or parents or everyone. John Krebs, the Chief Executive of the Natural Environment Research Council, made the apparently contentious point that you can always be scientific even when there are great uncertainties in a situation. He thought the problems stemmed from: lack of openness in decision making, lack of consensus and perceived lack of independence of scientists. Everyone agreed here that unnecessary secrecy was a bad thing. In the discussion period a hypnotherapist stood up and said that 90% of his patients were obsessed about infinitesimal risks. How could we help him was, to me, the implied question. I wondered whether he was hoping that the conference would induce sufficient extra anxiety to bring him more business or whether he just needed to talk to someone. John Durant of Imperial College argued that risk assessments need to involve lay people because there is a distrust of the experts after the sagas of nuclear power, pesticides, beef and food irradiation. He suggested `a period of cautious experimentation in the integration of expert and lay perspectives in this risks assessment process'. Robin Grove-White, University of Lancaster, used the phrase `plural rationalities'. This I took to mean that everyone is right and that sociologists (or at least the more relativistic ones) will defend unto the death our right to all be right. There is a chronic mismatch between perceptions of Government, business, scientists and the public. For example, in the Brent Spar farrago, Shell and the Government had a different perspective from the men in the rubber boats. The Government and Shell were short-termists and parochial while environmentalists were thinking well ahead and globally. Of course, on the day, it was a hands-down victory for the inflatables (even though they got their sums wrong) and Shell's particular rationality was up the creek. Our refusal to acknowledge that there are views other than scientific ones about the acceptability of particular risks, and that these are at least as important and more likely paramount, undermines our system of government. He thought that the demand for more information on BSE was a surrogate for mistrust of Government. I am not sure we are quite as close to the edge as all that but I take the point. Sir Robin Nicholson talked about the pressures of Government, the need to make decisions in uncertain circumstances but recounted memorably his first encounter with Mrs Thatcher. It was the time when the Channel crossing was being debated under the title of the Channel Fixed Link and choices had to be made between tunnels and bridges. Nicholson was summoned and asked his advice. Before he could give it, he was told that all he had to do was tell Mrs T what Brunel would have done in the circumstances. She went on to demand of him why he was needed anyway. Such are the risks faced by Government scientists. Lewis Wolpert made a good point in the discussion; it's scientists who uncover most of these risks so why does everyone distrust them. Someone else stood up and said that `expertise is a deeply political concept'. While I wondered whether he was an expert in this field himself and w hether he should be mistrusted the Chairman of the session said that he thought it a deeply silly point and passed on. John Rimmington introduced the next session with a short advert for the HSE. Many of the points made about consultation and the involvement of non-experts had been taken into account by them; they did consult widely before taking decisions. He also gave some impression of the broad flow of a wide range of decisions that are everyday matters to regulators. Lucy Neville-Rolfe, director of the Deregulation Unit in the Cabinet Office, talked about deregulation and the process of regulatory appraisal that has to be followed before regulation is even considered for the statute book. Essentially - and I hesitate to summarise such an elegant presentation - the appraisal requires a comparison of the benefits of regulation with the total costs and the typical ones for a (usually small) business. Business has to be consulted - especially small business - and there has to be explicit consideration of political factors such as equity. This applied across the board but where risks are being regulated there are special problems: risks are not always easy to assess, it is not always straightforward to distinguish cause and effect and the benefits of risk reduction are sometimes difficult to qualify. Derek Burke, Chairman of the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes, said essentially that the layperson may see risks quite differently from the scientists. A full evaluation of the risks of food irradiation might show it to be completely harmless but the very mention of radiation conjured up dangerous ideas. A genetically modified yeast had been developed and proclaimed safe in 1990. The Times had responded soberly (`Genetic yeast passed for use?') but The Star had `Are the boffins taking the rise out of our bread?'. The negative reaction meant that the product has never been used. More recently the committee had been asked to pronounce on the safety of meat from sheep that carried the human gene for factor IX - a protein required for the treatment of haemophilia. For every 100 modified sheep only one can produce the protein in useful quantities so someone wondered if we should not eat the other 99 with the inactive gene. Consultation had shown a wide divergence of view ranging from an abhorrence of the whole idea (tantamount to cannibalism) to a pragmatic rabbinical reaction that if it looked like a sheep then it was a sheep. This emphasised the importance, Burke thought, of involving lay people in the decision making process. As I recall, a churchman is now on the committee giving moral guidance - although of course O'Riordan's results throw doubt on his real credibility. Scientists are regarded as arrogant, distant and uncaring. Angela Wilkinson is the corporate issues and reputation manager of Shell UK Exploration and Production. She described how Shell are reviewing their decision making process to avoid generating unnecessary public outrage (I am quoting the THES here). They are having a dialogue with the public about whether the Brent Spar platform should be dumped at sea and plan to incorporate the results of this into the solution they will recommend to Government. While there is more to this than science and regulatory compliance it helps business to have clear standards set and monitored by trusted, independent and authoritative bodies. The day was rounded off with a media panel. I was rather disappointed in the day. It was all well presented, everyone was very fluent and spoke with great conviction but there seemed little new to say compared with 1992. What there was seemed to be: the public do not trust Government and scientists and they need to feel involved in decision making on risk. Either very profound or very obvious - ask Aunt Gladys. Geoff Meggitt