Re: Re[2]: Averill's Editorial

[David Scherer <scherer@uiuc.edu>]

At 09:01 AM 7/31/96 -0500, you wrote:
>     I believe the article was written at the right "audience level".  
>     While some of the analogies may not be exactly technically correct, I 
>     believe they have the correct effect for an audience that is 
>     essentially ignorant of radiological issues.
>     
>     Articles written like this will probably do more good than a thousand 
>     professors writing technical papers.  This is unfortunate, but a 
>     reality.  Perhaps we're using the wrong tool for the job?  Tom Brokaw 
>     or Peter Jennings would probably have more persuasion power than a 
>     Nobel Prize winning scientist when talking to the public.
>     
>     Have Peter Jennings do that "Your Money" piece about how much has been 
>     spent on Yuccah Mountain and how silly it is that we aren't using it 
>     and your congress-person would probably vote to use it tomorrow.
>     
This is political activism, not science.  It is my opinion that the health
physics profession and the HPS should remain a professional, scientific
society and not an activist group.  If organized health physics pursues this
activist campaign without the support (and lead) of the radiobiology
community, we risk our collective reputation.  Of course individuals have
the same rights as any other citizen to help shape public policy.  But a
word of caution may be in order:  If scientific judgement is affected by
economic and regulatory concerns, we may share the fate of tobacco company
toxicologists.

This is probably unnecessary, but let me make it perfectly clear.  I am not
suggesting that Glen Vickers, David Gooden, or any other person is being
disingenuous.  Reasonable people have reached a scientific conclusion that
the current model is flawed.  But many comments on radsafe say, essentially,
"We're wasting money and the only way to fix it is to change the science."
IMHO this is thin ice.

Regards,
Dave Scherer
scherer@uiuc.edu