> Would the government tell us the truth if we were actually at risk or would they lie to avoid the mass panic that would undoubtedly ensue? Another good quest

> Would the government tell us the truth if we were actually at risk or would they lie to avoid the mass panic that would undoubtedly ensue? Another good question is, supposing that a mass panic would be elicited if there were honestly a wave of harmful contamination approaching, which answer should the government give? One might reasonably assume that the government should give the answer which causes the least public disorder (and subsequent harm to the public). But this doesn't mean you shouldn't trust the government per se, this means you should educate yourself so that you have some basic understanding of the likelihood of things like Fukushima affecting the West Coast. It does no good to say that you can't abdicate your rationality and trust to the government exclusively, if you then simply abdicate those to whoever is screeching the loudest.