Picture this...

[Michael Stabin <stabin@npd.ufpe.br>]

Hi, Sandy -

Excellent post.  Be careful, or you could raise the level of dialogue on
this server to an unacceptable new high.  ;-)

> Outrageous statements should be dealt with, but with facts, not
> emotional outbursts. ...The attacker becomes the target, and not the
ridiculous
> statement.

I could not agree more - if something completely incorrect is claimed, there
should be a response, but a rational and nonpersonal one, clearly. I think
Otto and others posted some quite calm and rational critiques of the Wing
study, for example, and this sort of dialogue should be encouraged.

> The question now becomes, how do you define outrageous?
> What do you consider the the issue of ORNL, Paducah, etc.?

I'm not wanting to comment at all about these latter issues, as I really am
mostly uninformed. I don't know what the specific worker claims are, what
the defense claims are, etc.  I am referring here to things such as
disingenuous epidemiology (a la Sternglass), intentionally miscalculated
dose or risk estimates, or misinformation campaigns about the dangers of
technologies that pose no reasonable threat to the health of anyone. In
these cases, there should be a response.

> Granted, the rhetoric was a bit extreme last week,

Last week was a sad one for this very good service.  As usual, Melissa did a
good job of intervening, and I think we can look forward to this continuing
to be a useful medium for exchange of ideas (notwithstanding my little joke
above).

> 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.

Yes, I agree, and was stating somewhat that position with my post on victims
a-plenty. This is an ailment of American society that must be corrected.

> But there have been
> those on Radsafe who have continually attacked these claimants,
> simply because they state they know the causal relationship.
> 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.

Again, agreed (scary, ain't it?). If someone was really harmed, I would
energetically argue on their behalf that they deserve compensation. And many
"anti-nuclear" arguments have merit.  For example, it *is* a problematic
issue to deal with long term storage of high level wastes. But that doesn't
mean that the President or governors of states where facilities are targeted
should be able to indefinitely delay the implementation of sound
technologies for disposal through political maneuvering.  I think that food
irradiation facilities themselves, rather than the irradiated food, bring
some substantial risks of high worker exposures. But that doesn't mean that
we should not respond when celebrities or anti-nukes go on television and
attempt to scare the wits out of local citizens with poorly founded
arguments about cancer risks from the food itself.

OK, sorry folks, long post again. Yes, Neal, I do have a job to do and I'm
going to go do it now. I thought that Sandy's good post deserved a reply.


Michael Stabin
Departamento de Energia Nuclear/UFPE
Av. Prof. Luiz Freire, 1000 - Cidade Universitaria
CEP 50740 - 540
Recife - PE
Brazil
Phone 55-81-271-8251 or 8252 or 8253
Fax  55-81-271-8250
E-mail stabin@npd.ufpe.br

"Quantum Mechanics: The dreams stuff is made of"
- Steven Wright


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