Re: Energy site & education

["ruth_weiner" <ruth_weiner@email.msn.com>]

Is this argument getting on people's nerves?  Maybe.

OK, to answer your arguments:

1.  If a group lacks information, or has some doubts about the information
it has, would it generate a web site promoting what it has as information?
Wouldn't the group seek out or link to other web sites that it thinks have
better information?  That's what we did at Sandia when we built a web site.
So I would be inordinately surprised if they would react positively to
information that contradicts theirs.

2.  Why would a group ostensibly promoting interest in "science" cite only
or primarily the "bad" features of a technology?

3.  I used "innocent" in its meaning as "unaware" as well as "reflecting a
lack of sophistication" (Webster's 9th edition).
To phrase this more idiomatically:  I believe the website screens about
nuclear power reflect an anti-nuclear agenda and a pretty well thought out,
and subtle,  anti-nuclear bias.

If I've got it wrong, which I am always willing to concede, I'm sure they
will tell me.  I mean, if they put up this extensive web site they will
hardly be shrinking violets.

Had the environmental and anti-nuclear movement not engaged quite so
extensively in propagandizing in the name of education in the last 15 or 20
years, I would not be so immediately suspicious.

Good luck in your effort to educate them, though!

Ruth Weiner
ruth_weiner@msn.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Lavely <lavelyp@uclink4.berkeley.edu>
To: Multiple recipients of list <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Tuesday, December 26, 2000 7:09 PM
Subject: Re: Energy site & education


>--============_-1234239802==_ma============
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" ; format="flowed"
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
>Let me see if I understand your arguments.
>
>If it looks like a duck it must be a duck because they wanted to get
>a duck and only a duck would do and no one would have this duck
>unless what they had wanted from the start was a duck. The fact that
>these materials "bears a very close resemblance to what our local
>anti-nuclear groups, . . .  " is meaningless. The fact that they are
>concomitant does not mean that there is causation.
>
>  They are guilty and dishonest because they used materials and have
>not "checked their stuff with someone with even a little more
>expertise than they show." Perhaps they did check it out with some
>that they thought had credibility and knew what they were doing.




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