Re: PROFESSIONALS?

["DAVID LOVETT" <dlovett@PRODIGY.NET>]

I agree with Ray............. No matter what diffeerent opinions are here,

all needs to be heard..........We just don't want to monopolize the board.



Dave Lovett







----- Original Message -----

From: "Raymond Shadis" <shadis@ime.net>

To: "Franz Schoenhofer" <franz.schoenhofer@CHELLO.AT>;

<SAFarberMSPH@CS.COM>; <radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu>

Sent: Friday, July 13, 2001 3:48 PM

Subject: PROFESSIONALS?





> FRANZ,

> You write,

>  "Another question of course is that you are not only no professional, but

> > that you lack obviously any knowledge about the matter you write on.

> > Therefore the harsh reaction of other RADSAFErs is well understandable,

> > especially since it is not the first time that somebody - for instance

> once

> > a declared anti-nuclear activist with as little knowledge as you -

wanted

> to

> > explain to us, what radiation protection is, what are the hazards of one

> > single radioactive atom and one single quantum from a radioactive

element

> > etc. etc.

> > But you - and so many others! - who have not the slightest idea about

> > radiation, nuclear technology, radioecology etc. etc. - you want to tell

> us

> > professionals what is right and wrong? It is bad enough when we look

what

> > charlatans are in the mass media, in authorities and influencing the

> > decision makers and politicians.

> >

> > This list is - if I remember correctly - for the exchange of information

> for

> > professionals. Also non-professionals have been tolerated, at least to

my

> > knowledge nobody has been denied to read the contributions. Many

> > non-professionals have asked for advice in questions concerning

> radiation -

> > and they have been given it to the best of our knowledge. This list has

> > always been very tolerant.

> >

> > If you have a little bit of self-criticism, please stop sending messages

> to

> > the list. Read the contribution, you might be able to learn a little."

> >

>  Franz,

> When I first signed on to the list, I indeed thought it would not only be

an

> exchange among professionals, but also that the exchanges would be

> professional. I received generous replies and references to a question on

> calculating dose from hot particles, to a question on the work of W.I

> Vernadsky, Soviet scientist, and to a question on Pu-240 concentrations in

> various types of fuel.

> However I found the list contibutions peppered with ridiculous and

> unsubstantiated assertions which were anything but professional.  I think

it

> is plain that threshold of acceptance on radsafe is more philosopical than

> it is professional. The demonstrated inabilty of some radsafe responders

to

> follow a simple linear progression of reason does not bode well for the

> future of radiation professions.

>

>      " But you - and so many others! - who have not the slightest idea

about

>     radiation, nuclear technology, radioecology etc. etc. - you want to

tell

> us

>     professionals what is right and wrong? It is bad enough when we look

> what

>     charlatans are in the mass media, in authorities and influencing the

>     decision makers and politicians."

> Franz,

> I just completed service on the US NRC's Initial Implementation Evaluation

> Panel on the new Reactor Oversight Process. Federal law says these FACA

> panels must be made up of experts. I have been invited, on Friday, to

> present my views (for the fourth time) at a Briefing of the NRC

> Commissioners. Now, I admittedly don't know much after only twenty-two

years

> of generalized nuclear study, but it is wrong to say that I haven't the

> slightest idea about " radiation, nuclear technology, radioecology, etc."

I

> do have a "slight"  idea. What is surprising to me is not that youngsters

> with a fresh HP ticket may also have only a "slight" idea, but that so

many

> PhDs act like graduates of a Skinner box; incapable of considered and

> thoughtful dialogue. Some of the "charlatans" in the mass media and

journals

> have the same professional credentials that many members of your list

have.

> Should we also listen to them without question? All-in-all, I would much

> rather live in an overly protective frame of reference where we hope we

are

> wrong, than in an attitude of non-conservative assumptions about risk in

> which one is so afraid of being wrong that you can't stand a single

> contradiction or disagreement, even on semantics.

> I will attempt initiating no further dialogue.

>

> Thank You,  Ray

>

> >

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

> > 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.

>



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

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.