Re: Established, mainstream, orthodox, and august organizations

[PBarring@KDHE.STATE.KS.US]

Just as a general rule, citing anything to the anti's that doesn't agree

with their canon, rhetoric and doctrine is a cover-up and part of the

brainwashing that all of us in the nuclear industry went through back in

school.  The anti-nuke movement has progressed (devolved?) into a religion

for those in that camp.  Arguing logically and citing informed science is

like trying to convince a fundamentalist Christian that the King James

Bible is NOT a true translation.  They don't want to know the facts because

their mind is made up.  In other words, you can't argue logically against

belief.  Belief has no basis in logic.



"My opinions only and not the State's."



Philip Barringer

Kansas Dept. of Health and Environment

785-296-6342





Hi all,



I don't know if this is a real  or rhetorical question but here goes:



In the eyes of radical, extreme, fringe, or whatever groups, aren't

established, mainstream, orthodox, and august organizations part of a

system

that is desgined to coverup the *real* effects of the objectionable

material

under consideration, and if this is true, then is it of any use to cite

those reports in arguing with members of these groups? As an example, look

at the LNT problem: it is often said that the LNT is supported by all the

"establishment" bodies of the radiation protection community because of

money and prestige and other interests.



If people don't trust your sources, then how do you have a meaningful

dialogue?













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

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.