Re: pstd

[Paul lavely <lavelyp@UCLINK4.BERKELEY.EDU>]

Title: Re: pstd

Ruth Weiner,

Your original question was:

> "How about "Mobile Chernobyl?"
>
>  Should the anti-nukes continue to use it? Is the continued use
>
> ethical?  will it cause either stress or
>
> PTSD?"

Your post (below) seems intended to have a yes or no answer to complex issues. No not the words Mobile Chernobyl, but the knowledge and motivations of NIRS. Not being omniscient, I am reluctant to try and give a yes/no answer. Furthermore, it really does not matter what I think of NIRS sound bites - unless I have the ability to effect some change. That is, I do not believe that NIRS will listen attentively to my opinion.

I agree that Mobile Chernobyl is a mischaracterization. However, for me to state that it is a "deliberate distortion" would require information about NIRS to which I am not privy.

Is it ethical to use "mobile Chernobyl?" Ethics are: being in accordance with the accepted principles of right and wrong that govern the conduct of a profession.  Would you have me try and use my ethical standards or some sort of "universal ethics" to judge or adjudge the actions of another as being ethical? There is no way that I can state if this is ethical (since I am not a member of NIRS or knowledgeable of their motivations or ethical standards).

It seems that your questions are being asked of the wrong person - they need to be asked of Norm or NIRS.

I agree with Sandy Perle "This discussion isn't going anywhere."

Paul Lavely <lavelyp@uclink4.berkeley.edu>

> 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

--