Re: Picture this...

["Sandy Perle" <sandyfl@earthlink.net>]

Mike Stabin stated the following:

> Dan, I appreciate your point, but I don't see so much paranoia and being
> "anti the anti's" as I see reactions to simply outrageous statements.

Mike,

My post wasn't aimed at the argument against outrageous statements. 
Outrageous statements should be dealt with, but with facts, not 
emotional outbursts. Even though the facts will be rejected outright, 
the emotional attacks only foster further support for the outrageous 
statement. The attacker becomes the target, and not the ridiculous 
statement. 

The question now becomes, how do you define outrageous? Some of your 
examples do that, such as food irradiation. 

What do you consider the the issue of ORNL, Paducah, etc.? I don't 
know whether or not the claimants have been injured. I have an 
opinion, but I don't have the data and know all of the facts. Do you? 
Some Radsafers believe that they know that no individual was injured. 
They've so stated that, and, attacked the claimants. Granted, the 
rhetoric was a bit extreme last week, and there were a lot of 
statements aimed at the emotional side of the issue. However, the 
issue isn't how one presents their case, but whether or not someone 
was truly injured. If they were, and, can logically demonstrate that 
they were in fact injured, they should be compensated. My argument is 
with the current proposal to simply show that you worked at the 
facility, you now have an ailment, and all you need to do is cash the 
check. This is not scientific, nor is it fair. But there have been 
those on Radsafe who have continually attacked these claimants, 
simply because they state they know the causal relationship. Again, 
unless these individuals have all the facts, and supporting 
documentation, their attacks must be considered baseless.

In conclusion, I was seeking for a more logical process to address 
issues, without the rhetoric and emotionalism. If an idea is to be 
attacked, attack the idea, but do it was some basis, and so state it. 
Attacking an idea simply because it appears to be "anti-nuclear" is 
not an acceptable basis. Attacking without basis is just as much an 
outrageous statement as the original statement being attacked.

Regards,

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sandy Perle					Tel:(714) 545-0100 / (800) 548-5100   				    	
Director, Technical				Extension 2306 				     	
ICN Worldwide Dosimetry Division		Fax:(714) 668-3149 	                   		    
ICN Biomedicals, Inc.				E-Mail: sandyfl@earthlink.net 				                           
ICN Plaza, 3300 Hyland Avenue  		E-Mail: sperle@icnpharm.com          	          
Costa Mesa, CA 92626                                      

Personal Website:  http://www.geocities.com/capecanaveral/1205
ICN Worldwide Dosimetry Website: http://www.dosimetry.com

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