Re: West Wing, et. al.

[Kai Kaletsch <info@eic.nu>]

----- Original Message -----

From: "Paul lavely" <lavelyp@uclink4.berkeley.edu>



> ....Or should we assume that Baywatch accurately

> portrays the lifeguards of Southern California, ...



If Baywatch showed a species of shark, that is not capable of hurting

anyone,  killing people, then I would say its poor writing. If the episode

resulted in people trying to shoot or poison those sharks, then there would

be a bigger problem. At this stage, I would encourage biologists to stand up

and say that these sharks can't hurt anyone.



It seems to me that there was the spillover from West Wing into real life,

if politicians are getting phone calls and pledges of supports as a result

of it. So, now we are in the shooting sharks stage.



If the guest writer of that episode of Baywatch has close ties with an

industry that wants to wipe out that particular species of shark (e.g. they

hurt the shrimp industry), then I think it is fair to question motives.



Paul, please note that I was not one of the people that were outraged at the

West Wing episode. I don't watch the show and I don't know a whole lot about

the waste transport issue. The point I was trying to make was that the

people, who have a vested interest in this issue and those who have invested

a lot of time and energy in it, have a right to point out factual errors.



> We

> can replace the writers of ...The

> Simpsons with nuclear engineers, lawyers, doctors, and former

> presidents (hey Bill C is out of work).



The Simpsons are satire, not fiction.



> Education is the answer - not argument.



I agree.



> Finally, we do have a professional group. The Health Physics Society.

> If responses to shows that depict radiation in an unfair or

> technically incorrect light are to be made, it seems that it is they

> who should comment.



I think people have the right to speak as individuals.



> >My question wasn't really about law. It is whether people have a right,

or

> >perhaps an obligation, to try and set the facts straight.

>

> No. Those who write this stuff have no obligation to get the facts

> right;



Sorry, I was talking about Ruth's right or obligation to comment.



> however, when the facts a wrong a company or industry can take

> them to court. The only place where you can force them to correct it

> is court.



Who is talking about forcing anybody???



> Who can remedy

> all the things in life that are unfair?



I'm not looking for a remedy. I am saying that people should be able to

point out factual errors without censure or ridicule.



Kai



************************************************************************

You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,

send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu  Put the text "unsubscribe

radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.

You can view the Radsafe archives at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/