[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Request of Information



At 06:07 PM 2/26/97 -0600, you wrote:
>All this is true, but doesn't deal at all with the confounding factors of
>other pollutants in the early mines, which have been found to be MUCH more
>toxic/carcinogenic than radon.

Agreed. I really meant my reply as an aside rather than an alternative
explanation.

>But:  Why only "mis-treat" the radium population when the radon population
can 
>generate so much more "interest"? small investment, large return  :-) 

I find the reason rather simple: in a free enterprise economy that has been
combined with a free press, we get a news industry in which bad news is big
business. And, in an industry with more reporters than news, the
competition to get one's work on the air or into print is intense, and
those that fail to do so end up out of work. So, pandering to a public's
unnecessary fear of radiation is an easy way for a reporter to get a story
on the air/printed, thus justifying the reporter's existense.


Bob Flood
Stanford Linear Accelerator Center
(415) 926-3793     bflood@slac.stanford.edu
Unless otherwise noted, all opinions are mine alone.