"The Anti-Nuclear Game", anti-anti's

["Karam, Andrew" <Andrew_Karam@URMC.Rochester.edu>]

Dear Colleagues:

I just stumbled across a book buried in our library (all five shelves of it)
titled "The Anti-Nuclear Game", written by Gordon Sims and published in 1990
by the University of Ottawa Press.

I have not had time to anything more than glance at the back cover, so I am
not prepared to review or discuss the book.  I am also unsure whether or not
it is still available.  However, given the recent discussions and rants on
Radsafe, I thought this might provide another kilo or two of gasoline to
throw on the fire.

With respect to the recent threads, it seems to me that there are legitimate
concerns on both sides of the issue.  We ("we" being HPs and others who work
with radiation for a living) are justly upset that our chosen field is
continually attacked, seemingly from all sides, and seemingly by people
whose agenda so clearly contradicts what we know to be factually true.  On
the other hand, I think that we may all be somewhat overly sensitive to
incorrect information that is presented by the media.  My personal opinion
is that few reporters will knowingly report incorrect information and are
usually willing to correct mistakes if these are pointed out in a
professional and polite manner.  There are obvious exceptions to this, of
course - I base this on my contacts with reporters in smaller and less
sophisticated markets and on those my father worked with while employed by
the Akron Beacon Journal.  However, I sincerely believe that we will have a
more positive impact if we address inaccurate information calmly and
professionally, even in our Radsafe discussions, than if we continue to
attack every mistake as deliberate and malicious.  As I was told once by
someone I respect highly, what we say about others tends to reflect more on
us than on others.

I try to assume that people have concerns because they don't have enough
information, because their information is flawed or inaccurate, or because
they have a genuine reason to be concerned.  And some people just have their
own agenda or are determined to be disgruntled about something.  While we
can't do anything about the perpetually disgruntled, we have an obligation
to try to correct the other concerns, either by providing sufficient quality
information or by investigating and (if necessary) mitigating legitimate
problems.  Please note that I am NOT speaking directly about ANY of the
recent Radsafe threads.

One final note about attorneys in particular.  In spite of all the lawyer
jokes I've heard, I have yet to meet an attorney who lives up to them.
Again, I may have led a sheltered life.  However, in speaking with class
action lawyers, criminal lawyers, corporate lawyers, and others I have
finally decided that the legal profession is usually unfairly labeled.  I
firmly believe that most attorneys are trying to do the "right thing" as
they see it.  Once they take on a client, they are obligated to try their
best to represent their client and his/her interests, and to try to carry
out their client's wishes.  Attacking an attorney simply because he/she is
working on for a client whose case we find questionable does not make the
attorney an evil person, any more than our working for nuclear power
stations, DOE, etc. makes us evil.  We all do the best we can, usually in a
moral and ethical manner.  Unfortunately, the few exceptions tend to tarnish
the entire group.  

The bottom line; why don't we make a default assumption that most of the
people with whom we disagree are making a good-faith effort to do what they
consider "right".  If they're wrong, then our job is to give them enough
information to reach an informed decision.  If they still disagree with us,
well, that's life.  

Enough said.

Andy

Andrew Karam, CHP              (716) 275-1473 (voice)
Radiation Safety Officer          (716) 275-3781 (office)
University of Rochester           (716) 256-0365 (fax)
601 Elmwood Ave. Box HPH   Rochester, NY  14642

Andrew_Karam@URMC.Rochester.edu
http://Intranet.urmc.rochester.edu/RadiationSafety

Mathematics may be compared to a mill of exquisite workmanship which grinds
you stuff of any degree of fineness; but, nevertheless, what you get out
depends on what you put in; and as the grandest mill in the world will not
extract wheat-flour from peascods, so pages of formulae will not get a
definite result out of loose data.  (T.H. Huxley, 1869)

************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html