Re: free speech

["Bud Yard" <Bud.Yard@state.tn.us>]

Radsafers,

As a relative newcomer to the group (two weeks) I should probably reserve comment, but maybe this observation will prove to be constructive.



I signed on to this group in hopes of gaining technical knowledge outside of the parameters of my work environment. I had also hoped to track the latest news article postings from around the country, and gain an insight into other worlds of rad. 



While I am seeing a good bit of what I had hoped to see in the technical and current events aspects, I have been a little disappointed in another way.



I must agree with Lipton that some members of the group have a tendency to demonize others (the media, environmentalists, and those perceived as anti-nuke). Some of the rebuttals offered do seem rather personal. 



I must say I was amazed this morning to see the resurgence of Clinton-bashing (the former president), although in retrospect, over the last couple of days Mrs. Clinton's character has been fairly ruthlessly assaulted.



If I could offer anything to the group, it would be this . . . The technical sharing of ideas on our chosen profession using the internet can (and should)  be a great benefit to all of us, but it may be helpful if we were a little more clinical and less personal in our discussions.



Just my opinion, add $4.50 and it will buy you a cup of coffee at Starbucks.



Charles R. (Bud) Yard, Ph.D., M.P.H.

Oak Ridge, Tennessee

 

   



>>> William V Lipton <liptonw@DTEENERGY.COM> 05/02/02 07:11AM >>>

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.

It's not about dose, it's about trust.

Curies forever.



Bill Lipton

liptonw@dteenergy.com 



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

> Assistant Professor of Radiology and Radiological Sciences

> Department of Radiology and Radiological Sciences

> Vanderbilt University

> 1161 21st Avenue South

> Nashville, TN 37232-2675

> Phone (615) 343-0068

> Fax   (615) 322-3764

> e-mail     michael.g.stabin@vanderbilt.edu 

> internet   www.doseinfo-radar.com