Re: pstd

[RuthWeiner@AOL.COM]

In a message dated 3/11/02 5:09:33 PM Mountain Standard Time, lavelyp@uclink4.berkeley.edu writes:



> Should? To be able to?
>
>
>
> Ethical? Being in accordance with the accepted principles of right and wrong that govern the conduct of a profession (or group).


Let me put it another way.  Once again, let me repeat that characterizing spent fuel transportation as "Mobile Chernobyl" is an egregious mischaracterization.  I will add that it is a deliberate distortion intended to produce fear.  Mr. Lavely, do you agree with these two statements?  If not, I'd like to know the basis for your disagreement.


If you agree with these two statements, do you consider it ethical for anyone to characterize spent fuel transportation this way?  In other words, do you consider it ethical to promote a deliberate distortion in order to frighten people?  I am not asking whether this is ethical in the absolute sense -- no one can make that judgment -- but whether YOU consider it ethical.  


Clearly anyone can say anything they want.  But the anti-nukes keep insisting that they occupy some sort of moral or ethical high ground, and I find this irreconcilable with deliberate distortion of fact.


"and we should try and reach the same people with our side of the issue"  Well we, or at least I, do.  But that's not the point.  The point I am trying to get at is: here is a deliberate distortion being trumpeted by a group -- the anti-nuclear movement -- that purports to be concerned about post-traumatic stress induced by media reporting of events.  Are they doing the same thing with "Mobile Chernobyl?"  



Ruth Weiner, Ph. D.

ruthweiner@aol.com