[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: "The Anti-Nuclear Game", anti-anti's
Excellent posting. I recommend that all of us read this and act accordingly.
The opinions expressed are strictly mine.
It's not about dose, it's about trust.
Bill Lipton
liptonw@dteenergy.com
"Karam, Andrew" wrote:
> 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
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html