[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Title: Re: pstd
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
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
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
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
Paul Lavely <email@example.com>
In a message dated 3/11/02 5:09:33 PM Mountain
Standard Time, firstname.lastname@example.org 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
"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.