Re: Dwarfing Chernobyl

[GACMail98@aol.com]

Perhaps, I show more respect to the individuals who subscribe to RADSAFE than
you think.  Rather than "suggest" something else, I clearly directed my
statements at the "many radsafers" (my words) as distinguished from the
"majority of us" and "radsafers as a group" (your words).   I observe a
diversity of opinion among radsafers and do not presume to know or say what
"we really do think" (again, your words).  

Harald Weiss asked that "all of us radsafers should in common condemn any
political/militaric strategy that aims to or willingly accepts the use of
ionizing radiation as a weapon against civil population."  While I am pleased
to read condemnation from individual radsafers, I simply opine that there are
"too many radsafers" who willingly contribute to this very strategy to expect
Mr. Weiss' "common condemn[ation]."  Are there any radsafers at DOE, Sandia,
Pantex, LLNL, LANL, etc. who make nuclear weapons safer to manufacture,
handle, transport, or use who will condemn the "use of ionizing radiation
against civil population"?

Now, what would be truly disturbing is that "too many radsafers who. . ."
really does include the "majority of us." 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Glenn A. Carlson, P.E., JD
St. Peters, MO
GACMail98@aol.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In a message dated 98-05-31 18:00:28 EDT, Sandy Perle writes:

<< Subj:	 Re: Dwarfing Chernobyl
 Date:	98-05-31 18:00:28 EDT
 From:	sandyfl@earthlink.net (Sandy Perle)
 Sender:	radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
 Reply-to:	radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
 To:	radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu (Multiple recipients of list)
 
 Glenn Carlson said the following:
 
 > Also, RADSAFE is an unlikely source for the common condemnation you seek. 
 > Too many radsafers make their livings promoting, supporting, designing,
 > producing, maintaining, and testing the very weapons you would have them
 > condemn and threatening to use them against civilian populations.
 
 With all due respect, I find the above comments quite disturbing. To suggest 
 that Radsafers as a group consider weapons as a viable entity ...
"threatening 
 to use them against civilian populations" as acceptable is quite insulting. 
 Perhaps you should visit Radsafe a little more frequently to determine what
we 
 really do think. I thought it was to promote understanding and foster
protection 
 for the populace from ionizing radiation, as well as other forms of
radiation. I 
 didn't know until your comment that a majority of us are still living in the
dawn 
 of the nuclear age, whereby the bomb was the principal focus, and not 
 protecting the public.
    >>