|
I'm curious as to who would determine what speech is "dangerous and irresponsible,"
and am quite concerned about the tendency on Radsafe to demonize anyone
who disagrees with the party line.
I didn't notice any glaring factual errors in the NYT story; just a headline that you didn't like. As Norm pointed out, all the "tooth fairies" did was say that this needs further study, which is the standard academic conclusion. (It would be refreshing to see an academic paper which concluded that this subject isn't worth studying any more!) The opinions expressed are strictly mine.
Bill Lipton
Michael Stabin wrote: >Democracy and free speech often seem to get in the way of progress. Remember the recent scare article about tens of thousands of cancer deaths occurring annually in children being overexposed in pediatric CT procedures? Yes, we can do better at optimizing CT exposures, and many are now striving to do so. But this was a bad misuse of LNT, and a bit of "free speech" that now has parents across the country refusing to let their children receive ANY CT exposures, in many cases when they should receive them, for diagnosing potentially serious diseases. Once again, *real* deaths may occur from inappopriate responses to claims about *theoretical* deaths from a suspect model. Dangerous and irresponsible free speech (like yelling "fire" in a theater when there is none) is, and should be, prohibited. Making absurd claims about infant mortality from a *fraudulent* (not *faulty*) epidemiological study, IMHO, may constitute dangerous and irresponsible speech. Mike Michael G. Stabin, PhD, CHP |