[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Scare tactics
This is a good example of scare tactics and the improper use of what
may be correct numbers. One method for bringing some sanity to the
process is contained at the bottom of the article. If you are in
the district of the Congressmen who are sponsoring the resolution
listed in the original article, write or call them and ask their
rationale for sponsoring the bill. Entering into a constructive
dialogue works. The long-term solution in my opinion still rests
with education at the high school and college level about risk and
how to interpret risk statements.
Once again the part that is missing from the article, as Susan
Gawarecki correctly pointed out, is a statement about the amount
that actually reached the cities cited.
Risk is determined by the amount present not the presence of an
amount.
Standard disclaimers.
Eric G. Daxon
egdaxon@juno.com
______________________________ Reply Separator
_________________________________
Subject: Scare tactics
Author: <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu > at internet-mail
Date: 2/8/99 2:22 PM
This just came to my screen. The scare tactics are classic. The
author uses the groundwater contamination to segue into the
contamination of downstream drinking water, without pointing out the
huge dilution factor, which undoubtably brings the uranium
concentrations into the range of background. Hot button words like
"toxins" and well-worn anti-nuke phrases like "glow in the dark" are
also used to frighten the public. It's too bad reality doesn't sell
newspapers.
--Susan Gawarecki
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/bluesky_exnews/19990205_xex_does_your_wa.
shtml
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html