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

["Lamothe, Emelie" <lamothee@aecl.ca>]

Having read the book, I can honestly say that it is well-worth the read.  If
you can't purchase a copy, try the interlibrary loan route.

Cheers.

Emelie Lamothe
djack@magma.ca

> ----------
> From: 	Karam, Andrew[SMTP:Andrew_Karam@URMC.Rochester.edu]
> Reply To: 	radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
> Sent: 	Thursday April 06, 2000 11:58 AM
> To: 	Multiple recipients of list
> Subject: 	"The Anti-Nuclear Game", anti-anti's
> 
> 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