Dialogue and the alternative

[Vincent.King@DOEGJPO.COM (Vincent King)]

     RASAFERs,
     
     The recent 'discussions' on compensation issues for former Oak 
     Ridge workers provides a good case study of how useful dialogue 
     should and should not be conducted, and demonstrates one of the 
     most common breakdowns in dialogue.
     
     Dialogue is a two way exchange of information - facts, feelings, 
     ideas, etc.  
     
     When one party decides NOT to exchange anymore, the dialogue is 
     over.  This can happen because of (1) a refusal to accept or listen 
     to what the other says, (2) attacking the other rather than 
     addressing the issues.
     
     When an anonymous e-mail ('Radio Silence') talks about those who 
     'made fun of the sick workers'(which no one on RADSAFE has done), 
     this is not an invitation to a discussion of issues, it's just an 
     attack and should be recognized as such. 
     
     While denigrating the messenger rather than dealing with the 
     message is common in politics, protest demonstrations, and 
     courtrooms, it's important for us to step back, catch our breaths, 
     and not fall into (or be drawn into) the same behavior. 
     Name-calling wastes everyone's time. If it isn't part of seeking or 
     providing useful information, let's skip it. 
     
     As a side benefit, as long as we stick to exchanging useful and 
     pertinent information, we are also not guilty of 'goofing off' on 
     company time (another recent attack) as far as most employers are 
     concerned. Tools such as RADSAFE have made the professionals who 
     use it much more effective and efficient at their jobs, and using 
     it is as legitimate as using the telephone.
     
     Finally, as someone recently noted, there is the possibility that 
     the recent 'attacks' were intended for no other reason than to 
     accumulate ugly responses made by RADSAFERS to use later in showing 
     how heartless and mean-spirited 'we' are. Let's not accomodate such 
     goals.
     
     As far as the issues are concerned, I still do not believe in free 
     'giveaways' of taxpayer money.  I do not believe that an 
     individual's stated 'belief' that they have been harmed by the 
     government should be the sole criterion for providing 
     taxpayer-funded compensation to that individual. These are simply 
     my opinions, and I do not apologize for them. Since I try to base 
     my opinions on factual information, I would welcome any pertinent 
     FACTS related to the issue of causation of the alleged illnesses 
     provided in the course of a professional dialogue. 
     
     Vincent King
     vincent.king@doegjpo.com
     (written during my lunch break)
     
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html