Friday, June 13, 2003 | 5:30 a.m.
LAST WEEK I HEARD a radio story about a controversy incubating at the University of California, Davis, that seemed familiar.
Some Davis administrators and scientists are eager to establish a new high-security, infections-diseases laboratory for "biodefense" research into lethal pathogens such as anthrax, ebola and the plague. University officials applied for $150 million from the National Institutes of Health to construct the new 300,000-square-foot facility.
But some Davis residents don't want the bug research near town, and they are waging a battle to block it. The city council rejected the lab and a citizens group filed a lawsuit. Folks in Davis are worried the lab could attract terrorists, or that nasty pathogens could leak out by accident -- or be carried out.
It hit me that the controversy had similarities to Nevada's own NIMBY battle over Yucca Mountain -- specifically the controversy over public perception.
Reasonable people are debating whether the lab -- and the proposed nuclear waste facility -- pose a real danger. But there's no doubt the public anxiety is real in both cases.
A relevant question is: Should that matter? Could that anxiety ultimately hurt Nevada or Davis?
In the Yucca case, the Energy Department says no. I dusted off a DOE analysis of whether people would spurn Las Vegas because of Yucca. Buried in the DOE's voluminous final environmental impact statement for Yucca you'll find Volume I, Appendix N: "Are Fear and Stigmatization Likely and How Do They Matter?"
The lengthy report concludes oh-so-helpfully that it's impossible to quantify the effect of risk perceptions of Yucca. But it adds, "In the absence of a large accident at the repository or a continuing series of smaller accidents, there is little reason to expect adverse effects" from negative public perceptions.
Strange then, isn't it, that "adverse effects" are surfacing in Davis, where public fears are focused on a smaller project? Unlike Yucca where "uncertainties" abound over the massive first-of-its-kind project, biodefense labs are already proven to operate safely. Even so, some Davis residents say they'll leave town if the lab is built.
"I don't think it's even an issue anymore whether the fear is justified or not," Davis City Councilwoman Sue Greenwald told National Public Radio. "We could argue that for 1,000 years. The fear itself at this point has reached a level where it could be very damaging to this community."
The congressional effort aimed at banning Internet gambling cleared a huge hurdle last week when the House approved it 319-104, and debate shifted to the Senate.
Somewhat lost in the political rhetoric were the voices of website operators who were watching the debate and grinding their teeth.
Sources in the Internet gaming industry last week told me the legislation would not eliminate cyber casinos and would likely send website operators further "underground."
The bill bans use of credit cards, checks and money wire transfers in an effort to make it impossible to place bets. Some credit card companies and banks already ban cutomers from cyber-betting. But shifty website operators -- many overseas -- skirt that by miscoding bets. Credit card companies think their customers are just racking up charges at some phantom company, said one industry source who declined to give his name.
Website operators also are developing software that creates new types of electronic currency to get around the legislation, said Keith Furlong, deputy director of Interactive Gaming Council, an industry lobby group.
It's a mistake to eliminate credit cards because that eliminates the clear audit trail that makes it easier to track problem gamblers or children, industry sources said. That trail also makes it harder for terrorists and criminals to use gambling websites to launder money, Furlong said.
As an alternative to the legislation, IGC advocates regulating and taxing its industry, which would be no simple task. But it beats the alternative, Furlong said.
"The IGC would hope the legislators would look at what we think is a much more sensible approach," Furlong said.
archive
