Re: "The Secret Word"

[Muckerheide <muckerheide@MEDIAONE.NET>]

Sandy,



If you were right, that "we know the truth," then HPS wouldn't be selling

the opposite to Congress, much less the LNT supporters on radsafe.



If we don't say it here, those who do not know the science, but only the

indoctrination of HP training and the EPA/NRC/DOE-funded "scientists," will

not know that they can influence the direction of this non-debate directly -

advise/question your "leaders," in the HPS and in your company/institution.



Regards, Jim

============



>> Until these institutions are willing to state the simple truth--that

>> LLR is not harmful and can be beneficial--and admit that it is not

>> conservative or even honest to say otherwise--until that time, it is

>> not valid to try to blame the public, the media or the antis.

> 

> There is no question to the validity of Ted's comment above. But

> the bottom line is, so what? We know the problem, we know the

> truth, but we will never get our position accepted as the basis for

> radiation protection standards in this country, or for that matter,

> any other country. This debate has raged on for decades, and has

> been hashed and rehashed on Radsafe and every other associated

> listserver. Continuing the debate here serves absolutely no useful

> purpose. We can all pat ourselves on the back, saying that we

> know the "truth", the whole "truth" and nothing but the "truth". I ask

> where does that get us? Absolutely nowhere.

> 

> The battle isn't here on Radsafe. The battle must be fought in the

> trenches. The battle must be first won by reputable scientists who

> have in the past, continued to foster the notion that radiation, even

> at the minutest amounts, will cause a higher increase in illness

> and in some cases, even death, now coming out and stating that

> their hypothesis was simply incorrect. Until this happens, and

> those organizations who harbor these scientists, as though they

> are God, the debate will continue, and legislation will continue to

> be based on a false hypothesis. I'm a pessimist. I firmly believe

> that not only is the current positions of many of the scientists and

> institutions wrong, it will not get any better, but in reality, will

> actually get worse. The indicators are very clear. Increased

> regulatory scrutiny and actions taken when there is no identifiable

> harm determined. Legislation moving to reduce allowable radiation

> exposure, based on input from the "learned" institutions.

> 

> Why should this get any better, and why should truth prevail? It

> won't, considering that many of these scientists and institutions

> have made a career base don falsehood. This is their livelihood.

> Why should they change now?

> 

> **************************************************************************

> Sandy Perle     Tel:(714) 545-0100 / (800) 548-5100            

> Director, Technical    Extension 2306           

> ICN Worldwide Dosimetry Service  Fax:(714) 668-3149                       

> ICN Pharmaceuticals, Inc.   E-Mail: sandyfl@earthlink.net     

> ICN Plaza, 3300 Hyland Avenue    E-Mail: sperle@icnpharm.com           

> Costa Mesa, CA 92626

> 

> Personal Website: http://sandyfl.nukeworker.net

> ICN Worldwide Dosimetry Website: http://www.dosimetry.com

> ************************************************************************

> You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,

> send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu  Put the text "unsubscribe

> radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.

> 



************************************************************************

You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,

send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu  Put the text "unsubscribe

radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.