[ RadSafe ] questions of honesty (was Re: WISE Uranium....)

[James Salsman]

Andy Karam wrote:

>.... it is all too easy to read your 
> comments as indictments of personnel working in a field about which you 
> seem to have little direct knowledge or understanding.   You also seem to
> go under the assumption that everyone is trying to hide, or to get away 
> with something - this is rude, to say the least....

Those are legitimate points that I have been neglecting.  There is
probably no way to know for sure, but I think it's quite likely
that almost everyone in the health physics profession who might
raise the points I have been raising would put at least their
reputation (if it all turns out, after empirical investigation, to
be unfounded concerns) and at most their job security at risk.
Those are very good reasons that credentials are not required to
submit such accusations.

I think it's important to air the accusations here.  You've suggested
that I should ask questions, but what happened when I asked questions
about the production of gaseous UO3 from uranium combustion in air?
They were met with calls for censorship and shunning.

>... In my experience, most people (including scientists, regulators, and 
> even reporters) are straight-forward and honest.  Although I have heard 
> of scientists who have purposely altered or supressed data for a 
> specific purpose, I have never met one in person....

15.5% of scientists admit to changing a study under pressure from
a funding source, according to a Nature study reported here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/daily/graphics/misconduct_060905.html

Sincerely,
James Salsman