Re: NY Times Editorial on Marie Curie

[Keith Welch <welch@jlab.org>]

Here's something to consider.  Check out  the responses to this
thread, and try to adopt a layperson's viewpoint.  The experts are
arguing among themselves as to what killed Curie, and missed the bigger
point.   I suspect most folks don't worry too much about whether
Mme. Curie died of radiation exposure or not.  Most people might expect
that given the era, the lack of safety precautions, the lifetime spent
sifting pitchblende, that her exposure was extraordinary compared with
doses today.  What bothers me about the NY Times piece is that it
says there is a valid question as to  whether this branch of "scientific
research" has any net benefit to society.  It's the same old anti-nuc
rhetoric.   I wrote to the Times, but I didn't talk about what
killed Curie.

On the outside chance that they were to print a response to the original article, I hope what the readers would get to hear about is how Curie's work has helped produce technologies that save, extend, and improve millions of lives; how we all benefit in countless ways by the application of nuclear technology.  And that the original article sought to twist one person's supposed death from radiation exposure into a general condemnation of all things radioactive.  In short, there's no comparison when "tallying up" the positive with the negatives of nuclear technology - that's the message we should convey.
 

These opinions and 50 cents will buy you a really small cup of coffee.

--
Keith Welch
Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility
Newport News VA
welch@jlab.org
Ph: (757)269-7212
FAX:(757)269-5048
  ************************************************************************ The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html