However, I don't think that Norm is a member of HPS, and I doubt that, even if NIRS or "unplug Salem" has a code of ethics, it includes a similar provision. (There is a Norman Cohen listed in the directory, but I don't think it's the same person.)
The question is thus what is "practical." I think that endless debate with these folks, especially when we become nitpicking, academic, and condescending, merely gives their arguments legitimacy and credibility. This is especially true when events overtake rhetoric, which is all to common as I wait for the next DOE shoe to drop. The only "practical" means of countering public perceptions is to set and keep the highest standards. We must take all radiation exposure seriously, LNT or not, and investigate and correct every minor problem before it comes to public attention. We must self-regulate, and, if necessary, shut down those who can't or won't meet these standards. (That's the concept of INPO / WANO). It's 2 outs, 2 strikes in the bottom of the ninth. It's our only hope.
The opinions expressed are strictly mine.
It's not about dose, it's about trust.
Curies forever.
Bill Lipton
liptonw@dteenergy.com
RuthWeiner@AOL.COM wrote:
In a message dated 3/11/02 10:45:14 PM Mountain Standard Time, sandyfl@earthlink.net writes:
I see no difference in the Mobile Chernobyl. I see it as ridiculous. Is it
unethical? I don't think so.Thank you, Sandy. All I wanted was an answer. I take it that the RADSAFE consensus is that using hyperbole, slogans, and innuendos is not, or perhaps never, unethical (sorry about the double negative).
Ruth Weiner, Ph. D.
ruthweiner@aol.com