Re: pstd

[BLHamrick@AOL.COM]

In a message dated 03/11/2002 9:47:03 PM Pacific Standard Time, sandyfl@EARTHLINK.NET writes:



> One of my sons 
>
> works for PETA (they are a little radical as well as the anti-nuclear forces). One of 
>
> their campaigns was MurderKing. There are others. Does Burger King murder? Of 
>
> course not. However, it was their slogan and it made a point they were trying to get 
>
> across. I see no difference in the Mobile Chernobyl. I see it as ridiculous. Is it 
>
> unethical? I don't think so. If we have a problem, then get out there and set the world 
>
> straight. Constant discussion on Radsafe gets all of us nowhere.


Here's where I disagree:


If we recognize PTSD as a legitimate physical/mental insult to humans (and, I think we do), and we compensate for it via our courts (or insurance where available), then we should (for our own good, and in the interest of maintaining some integrity in our judicial system) be faulting the right parties for causing the trauma.


If the trauma is not borne of any physical insult by the initiating event (i.e., there was no actual threat of detectable physical harm or death from the radiation release at TMI), but is borne of the fear generated by government officials, or the media, or anti-nuclear activists, then those entities should be the ones targeted in claims for damages resulting from PTSD.  If the media, or anti-nuclear groups use hyperbole to garner attention and support and cause fear and/or panic in the wake, to the extent that PTSD results, then they should be held accountable.


If I water my lawn every day, and my neighbor (a hydrophobic) thinks that I am damaging the environment by watering my lawn, and his/her fears are fed by anti-hydro fringe groups, and a media that is sympathetic to the anti-hydro agenda, because of the great ratings those stories generate, then on the day when