Re: Prefer a Technical Track for the Radsafe List

[RuthWeiner@aol.com]

In response to Harry Newman (even though he said not to):


1.  Health physics, risk assessment, and environmental assessment were all , it seems to me, born in a political (or at least politicized) context.  These are applied sciences, and some of the application is frankly political.  For example, if we did not have the Clean Air Act of 1970, we would not have research into air pollution or engineering of air pollution controls.  Of we did not have the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, we probably wouldn't have health physics!


2.  A number of apparently political questions have technical responses, and vice versa.  Is the controversy over the LNT technical, political, or both?  I have often responded technically to overtly political statements about pollution from coal plants.


3.  I get annoyed by some of the anti-nuke nonsense, and I would wish for an end to pointless name-calling.  However, I really enjoy the free-flowing discussions on RADSAFE, which I find a relaxing break from the technical analyses I do day in and day out..  If I don't have time, I just delete.


So I prefer to have RADSAFE stay just as it is.


Here is a truly off-topic aphorism for your reading pleasure: just remember that everything Fred Astaire did, Ginger Rogers did backwards and in high heels.


Happy New Year!



Ruth Weiner, Ph. D.

ruthweiner@aol.com