[ RadSafe ] "New Yorker" article
doctorbill34 at gmail.com
Sat Oct 15 13:38:52 CDT 2011
Thank-you for your interest. It's good to know that someone reads my posts.
Nevertheless, I'm confused by several of your statements:
- Why do you consider this article "antinuclear?" You seem to think that
any article that's not biased to a pronuclear mindset is "antinuclear."
- You state that "Many papers are not on my 'reading list' ..." Does
this mean that you haven't read this article? If so, how can you reach
conclusions about it? BTW: "The New Yorker" is a highly regarded
publication, with some of the best writers in the world on its staff. I
suggest that you put this on your "reading list."
- If, in fact, > 90% of the news on "radiation" is bogus, it's still an
unwarranted extrapolation to thus conclude that this article is bogus.
- This article is primarily about Japan, not the USA, and makes no claim
to US superiority.
While I often disagree with your views, I generally respect your knowledge
and thought. Hence, this posting is a huge disappointment for me. I'm sure
that you can do better.
It's not about dose, it's about trust.
On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 2:05 PM, <franz.schoenhofer at chello.at> wrote:
> Dear Bill,
> If we should read any antinuclear article in any paper of this world we
> would probably be busy for the next tens of thousands of years - not
> counting the associated advertisments. We have to make a selection. Many
> papers are not on my "reading list", like the one you recommend. Furthermore
> you should know that 90, if not 99 percent of the news on "radiation" are
> bogus. Are you aware that the USA is such a small part of the world and that
> therefore the part in safety is very small.
> Sorry to disturb your belíef in US-superiority.
> Best regards,
> ---- William Lipton <doctorbill34 at gmail.com> schrieb:
> > Be sure to read the article, "Letter From Fukushima," in the October 17,
> > 2011 issue of "The New Yorker." It is a well-written, objective history
> > the accident and its effects on the population.
> > You may not be happy with the message, but don't shoot the messenger.
> > Remember, "Denial is not a river in Egypt."
> > The question the industry will have to answer is, "Can we be trusted to
> > safely manage nuclear power?"
> > Bill Lipton
> > It's not about dose, it's about trust.
> > _______________________________________________
> > You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
> > Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood
> the RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
> > For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
> visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu
> Franz Schoenhofer, PhD, MinRat
> Habicherg. 31/7
> A-1160 Vienna
> mobile: ++43 699 1706 1227
More information about the RadSafe