|
>I'm curious as to who would determine what speech is "dangerous and
irresponsible,"
The police and courts have determined that it is
dangerous and irresponsible to yell "fire" in a crowded place where no real
threat exists, and there are laws. I was of course not in any way proposing that
we outlaw public debate on nuclear issues, I was more agreeing with the comment
that giving both sides equal credence is absurd when one side is not even
bothering to use real facts, no less using facts fairly. The danger is
quite real - if people stop getting needed medical care, if we shut down large
segments of biomedical research that use radioactive tracers, if we replace
noninvasive nuclear medicine procedures with surgery, etc., there are real
consequences in terms of human life and health. The groups who practice such
things will not take responsibility for their actions, and those who know that
what they are doing is wrong need to speak up and say so.
>and am quite concerned about the tendency on Radsafe to demonize anyone
who disagrees with the party line.
I think it's a bit oversensitive to say that I was
demonizing you because I proposed an alternative argument to the one you were
making. I don't think there is a "party line" on this list, I see a fairly good
spectrum of opinion. When I participate in discussions, I hope people realize
that I have taken off my "moderator" hat, and my opinions are given as solely
mine, not representing those of the list, of my employer, etc. I think there is
a prevailing opinion that (for ex) antinuclear rhetoric is heavy with
distortions, because that happens to be true. But there are also people
representing many sides of many issues, and all are free to post as they wish,
if their behavior remains nonabusive.
>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. Oh, puh-lease. The tooth fairies are not academicians interested in the pursuit of knowledge, they are people willing to distort facts in an attempt to scare the public and achieve a political end. As others have pointed out, the authors of the baby death studies have *hand selected* the data they want to show an effect. That, as I stated, was *fraudulent*. Some epidemiological studies may be *flawed* by not controlling carefully enough for interfering effects, not having well matched cases and controls, etc., but that is different than deliberately falsifying a data set to bring out a desired conclusion. That is scientific fraud, it should be punished appropriately (by public exposure and censure, pulling of funds, etc.). People have lost Nobel prizes and funding for similar misconduct. When it translates into intentionally spreading widespread public fear that people's children are keeling over dead every day because there is a nuclear power plant in their state, this is a major step beyond scientific misconduct. 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 |