> Northern Europe + Switzerland has way higher confidence in government than France: Indeed, IMHO because France is way too jacobinist (centralization + bureau

> Northern Europe + Switzerland has way higher confidence in government than France: Indeed, IMHO because France is way too jacobinist (centralization + bureaucracy : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobin_(politics) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobin_(politics) ). In Northern Europe and Switzerland subsidiarity is key. > "Renewables" sound good. "Nuclear" sounds scary. "Chemotherapy"/"radiation therapy" sound scary while "Energy Crystals" sound good. Most cancer patients will still chose the treatment recomended by doctors, because they trust him/her. Indeed, however there is no serious scientist (bar Placebo effect) working on 'Energy Crystals', but many do work on renewables. > At the point of elections, public opinion has already been set. The shaping of public opinion is mostly not done by politicians, though. But politicians is noe group that can affect the institutions that shape public opinion. Indeed, this is a complex and dynamic system, hosting retro-actions and hidden vectors. >> There is no sure source clearlyu indicating what is preferrable, or even (esp. outside of pure mathematics) what is really 'true'. > You realize that the sentence above is logically inconsistent with itself? ;) Yes, and it seems quite 'consistent' (!) because it asserts that no pure logic can, alone, provide a definitive answer when it comes to policies. > properly executed science is the best approach we have to determine the level of confidence we can have in certains sets of propositions Yes, a stable scientific consensus should never be neglected. > Someone who is reasonably bright and educated in the metods of science Yes! One can check the ability of science to explain, and therefore to efficiently predict. Teachings may benefit from this. > Climate science, cosmology and economy Only teaching stable consensual thesis would be a major progress. > At doses lower than 100mSv Details/devil. Internal exposure? Nearby which organ? And so on... > even at 1000mSv, you'll probably live Someone eating a 1Sv source or inhaling dust may, a few years later, disagree. > we know that radiation therapy They target tumors, and use various ways to protect what has to be protected. > there is a lot of science that is being taught with reasonable success in schools, especially hard sciences Yes! > That includes things like the health risks of radiation I don't consider it as hard science.