Re: Re[4]: A question of ethics

[David Scherer <scherer@uiuc.edu>]

At 03:38 PM 6/25/96 -0500, Glen wrote, in part:

>     thanks for the feedback.  As far as nuclear workers and the "perceived 
>     benefit" received; it is generally accepted that the high paying jobs 
>     we have are benefit enough to offset the small exposures we receive.  
>     We are also supplying lots of wonderfully environmentally clean power 
>     to benefit all of society.
>     
This is one of the three arguements I hear in radiation related discussions
that make no sense to me.  I don't want to pick on Glen; many others have
said this before.  It just came up when I had the time and inclination to
respond.

NPP workers derive their benefit (pay) as a result of their services, not
because they receive a radiation dose.  Some workers may receive no exposure
and yet receive a good paycheck (e.g. the utility CEO).  In radiology, the
exposure is essential, not ancillary.  The benefit cannot be achieved
without it.  (When there is an equally effective test without radiation, it
should be and is used instead.)

The other two arguements?

(1)  Natural exposures are treated as "good" radiation while man-made
sources are "bad" radiation.  No.  Some individual or group caused the
man-made stuff, so they are responsible to control or remedy it.  No
individual caused the natural stuff, so no one is charged with the
responsibility to clean it up or control it.  The difference is in
_responsibility_, not severity.  --On the other hand, you might say God
caused the natural stuff, but who's gonna enforce the rule in that case? :^)

(2)  If we don't spend money on questionable radiation control measures, it
could be put to a greater good elsewhere, e.g. preventive health, etc.
Perhaps it _could_ be used for good, but _will_ it?  Is there any evidence
that industry (or society) would direct the savings in the manner suggested?
Past experience suggests that the savings would be consumed, not directed to
altruistic purposes. Try turning the suggestion around: The government
should reduce the cost of (insert your pet peeve rule), if the utilities
agree to divert the savings to (insert your favorite charity).  I doubt the
shareholders would agree to the proposal.

In any discussion, non sequitors bring confusion instead of clarity and
leave the audience feeling somehow they've been bamboozled.

The soap box is now free for whoever wants it.

Dave Scherer
scherer@uiuc.edu