Re: Who posted this?

[GACMail98@aol.com]

On rereading my post, I agree that a reader could infer that Mr. Busby's
original post (see below) was in response to Mr. Ith's article.  This was not
its intent, and I apologize to Mr. Busby to the extent my post creates this
confusion.  I should have instead prefaced the use of the excerpt as a
paraphrase of Mr. Busby's remarks.  In the future, I will strive to make the
context and use clearer.

However, I stand by the intended point that the orthodoxy has one standard of
discourse for those with whom they agree and another for those with whom they
don't.

Glenn
GACMail98@aol.com

In a message dated 98-06-15 15:51:28 EDT, you write:

<< Subj:	 Who posted this?
 Date:	98-06-15 15:51:28 EDT

 Hi...
 
 I do not follow radsafe much, only in digest mode... but here seems to be 
 radsafe post that contained a cut from some post/e-mail message I sent.  
 I save all the e-mail I send and receive, and know what this originally 
 said, and it was NOT about Ith's article, as is implied.  I would like to 
 know who is responsible for this and state that doctoring e-mail is a bad 
 practice. The date on the cut was 98-05-04 , a long time before the Ith 
 article ever was published. If someone could explain it to me, I would be 
 much relieved. 
 
  - Bruce Busby
 ___________________________________

Subj:	 Re: RADSAFE digest 1851
Date:	98-05-04 11:55:41 EDT
From:	bab1303@hub.doh.wa.gov (Busby, Bruce)
Sender:	bab1303@hub.doh.wa.gov (Busby, Bruce)
To:	gacmail98@aol.com

I just can't resist. --- either

>1.  -deleted- no point

>2.  "Oil money funds anti-nukes."  An amusing thought, but certainly 
only a
>gibbering id. . .  Oops, I'm sorry, you're serious, aren't you?

I noticed you did not deny this.. or eve refute it.  Is NIRS funding 
sources public record? Do you EVEN know what NIRS funding source is... 
and how do you know it?

>3.  "The NIRS budget, while not huge, is certainly not small."  Each 
year,
>Sandia probably equals NIRS's FY 1998 budget in wasted copy paper 
(including
>the paycheck for a particular Sandia employee).  But, then, this 
calculus also
>equates statistical insignificance (as in "statistically insignificant 
excess
>cancers") with zero.

this was silly and pointless. What was supposed to be your point? 

>4.  "To the best of my knowledge, they have (or at least had in 1984) no
>technical or scientific expertise at all -- they generally tried to hire 
it."
>Either Ms. Weiner is working for Sandia pro bono (a fair wage for her 
day's
>work to be sure and a savings in paper to boot), or she was hired for 
other
>than technical or scientific expertise (let's see -- clerical, 
janitorial -- I
>know -- she's in Transportation Systems, so she's an auto mechanic, but, 
no,
>that's technical. . .  hmmm.).  (With apologies to all clerks, janitors, 
and
>auto mechanics.)

Hmmm... again, you did not deny or refute it. And I would guess that Dr. 
Ruth Weiner would not be in a clerical or janitorial position. Ruth 
Weiner is the former dean of environmental studies at Western Washington 
University, is on the faculty at the University of New Mexico

>Now, how does that fit?  Pinch anywhere?

? point?

>Seriously, though, while the Ruth Weiners of the world are unable to 
believe
>that NIRS has done and continues to do a lot of good work for a lot of 
good

what good work does the NIRS do? can you give examples of positive things 
that have resulted from NIRS? I can give positive things that Sandia has 
done.

>people, you don't have to agree with everything they do to know we are 
better
>off with them than without them.  After all, if Ms. Weiner is any 
indication,
>do we really want the Sandias of the world running things unopposed?  

"running things unopposed?" Whoever said anything about that? 

>Go get 'em, Michael!

go get who? who is "em" and why do they need "get"ing

Anyway, if you have facts to refute Ms Weiners post, give them. If all 
you have is this, it made you look like you did nto know what you were 
talking about. If you have facts (supported with documentation), I also 
would be very interested in seeing that! 


>----------------------------------------------------<
Bruce Busby   W - bab1303@hub.doh.wa.gov  H - babusby@aol.com
Radiation Health Physicist - Washington State Department of Health
Radiation Protection Division - Radioactive Materials Section     
7171 Cleanwater Lane, Building 5, PO Box 47827
Olympia, WA      98504-7827
Phone: 360-236-3222      Fax: 360-236-2255
>-----------------------------------------------------<