Re: TFP update article, E Magazine; replies to all

[RuthWeiner@AOL.COM]

In a message dated 9/17/02 12:18:35 AM Mountain Daylight Time, lists@richardhess.com writes:



> Thanks for the reply. What's interesting in the minds of some antis (and 
>
> remember, I was on the road to being one without questioning) is that the 
>
> government limits are meaningless. I was trying to relate it to more 
>
> natural things. I think the argument can be made to the general population 
>
> more in terms of chest x-rays, background radiation, etc., than the gov't regs.
>
>
> I understand where you're coming from, but if the regs are under suspicion, 
>
> then it doesn't help.


Maybe the anti-nuclear movement has changed since my day, but I spent quite a lot of time commenting on and testifying on and helping write Federal regulations when I was active with Sierra Club and other environmental organizations.   I notice just from the current press, and SIERRA, that environmental organizations are still quite active in this respect.  If Federal regulations are meaningless, why would these organizations spend so much time tryiing to influence them (and most often succeeding)?


The criticism is usually that the regulations are either too weak or inadequately enforced, or both, not that they are meaningless.  And it does appear that no matter what the regulation, some environmental organization is going to criticize it for being too weak.


Ruth

Ruth Weiner, Ph. D.

ruthweiner@aol.com