Salem radiation forum 9/8

[james.g.barnes@att.net]

The intent of this meeting is to motivate a populace.  It 
is not a discussion society.  Consensus science 
suggests that there is no significant effect from 
radiation at the levels encountered from operation of 
reactor facilities when run in accordance with current 
regulations.  In the activist's view, if the consensus 
science doesn't agree with their position, then the 
consensus is flawed or false (to wit, the meeting agenda 
listing several "experts" who probably do not represent 
the consensus view of the health physics profession).  
The fact that consensus science does not support their 
position is a minor inconvenience, but it is not 
an insurmountable obstacle in the pursuit of changing 
public policy.  Further activism will bring about the 
"socially correct" policy.  Main point:  it's about the 
"social issue" not about the science.

This activist model has been very effective in dealing 
with purely social issues (civil rights, World Bank, 
political prisoners, etc.).  Its extension to technically 
based social issues where one has to weigh hard 
scientific evidence against social viewpoint leads to the 
interminable, unresolvable arguments that we have been 
seeing on RadSafe for the last four months or so.  The 
activist is interested in the forwarding of the social 
issues in question, thus the scientific evidence provided 
is continuously filtered through the biases established 
by the social agendas.  Main point:  Its about political 
power, not about the science.

If a RadSafer feels like going to participate in (what I 
suspect will be) a lively political debate, then by all 
means go.  But I imagine that if a RadSafer were planning 
to go to "educate" anyone, he/she will be greatly 
disappointed.


Jim Barnes, CHP
james.g.barnes@att.net
> >>>>Any one individual from RADSAFE who goes there is going 
> to end up cannon fodder. It will make for delightful sport. 
> This is how fervent antinuclears operate.<<<<<
> 
> I don't agree.  Norm Cohen is one of their leaders and should be among the 
> most knowledgeable.  But his views are easily countered by the well informed 
> people on this list.  My impression is that most of the activists are not 
> well informed about radioactivity in the environment and its effects. A 
> single well informed person could in fact have a tremendous effect in a 
> meeting such as this if he or she is willing to speak up.  Solid evidence 
> should be required of the evidence.  They have very little evidence, if any 
> to support their views.  
> ************************************************************************
> 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