|
You left government work for consulting so that you could focus on the critical "big" issues, while disregarding the smaller concerns that in a statistical analysis become trivial. For example, you may note that the Ford plant typically adds minimally to the background levels of many of the most toxic chemicals, probably present from the community's own cars. If reduction in levels of carcinogens or toxics is the aim, you firmly believe (and here, you expose your earlier roots as an environmentalist in college) that the goal is the change "the system" throughout, rather than focus on individual sources whose perceived reputations make them vulnerable to criticism.
You are wary of extrapolating data from lab studies on animals, and normally you advocate epidemiological studies. In your considered professional judgement, however, an epidemiological study on this scale (in terms of population size and years of data to sample) would be statistically inconclusive, even if the health effects were noticeably severe. You also consider it to be far too costly in this case, given the limited size of the community and the resources required to conduct such a study. In a similar way, perhaps, your risk analysis for Ford was guided by concerns about investments of time and cost. In taking health data from a standardized source, you did what was prudent--namely, working with generally accessible information. Are the differences in the conclusions any more than marginally significant?, you might ask.
Some particular questions that you need to resolve:
Be sure to read the Background carefully for information that is relevant to these questions and your position.
Remember that the aim in adopting a stakeholder's perspective is not to "act out" someone else's role or to make decisions according to some stereotyped view of how another person "should" act. Rather, you should focus on the stakeholder's concerns and consider how YOU would act in a similar situtation.