From: russ@pmafire.inel.gov (Russ Brown)
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 92 14:54:55 GMT
Organization: WINCO
Subject: Re: Radioactivity and Superstition (and the *Real* Problems)
Summary: 
Followup-To: 
Organization: WINCO
Keywords: 

In article <JYM.92Sep1181648@remarque.mica.berkeley.edu> jym@mica.berkeley.edu (Jym Dyer) writes:
>=\= This thread has inspired erroneous statements from "both"
>sides.  Here are my three cents:
>
>    (1) As far as I know, lights with radioactive elements --
>    like smoke detectors with radioactive elements -- present
>    no health hazard to the consumer.
>
>    (2) The manufacturing of these products does involve
>    handling of radioactive materials.  Industries that handle
>    such materials have not had a great track record with
>    regards to employee safety.  No such problems in this
>    particular industry have come to light yet, though.
>
>    (3) Disposal of these products remains both an environmental
>    and a health problem.  As far as I know, nobody's even made
>    an attempt to address this problem.
>
>>> Notice that this thread started with someone who wanted to
>>> boycott General Electric - or maybe that was the second post.
>
>=\= I do personally boycott GE, but the problem exists with
>other companies' products.  (Even if I wasn't explicitly boy-
>cotting GE, I wouldn't buy their so-called "energy-saving"
>products because they're so pathetically inadquate.)
>
>>> General luddism.  Nuclear applications are new.
>
>=\= Pro-nuke advocates are always bringing this up, but I must
>say that I've never met even one anti-nuke advocate who was
>actually motivated by Luddism.  Not a single one.
>
>=\= The anti-nuclear movement has consistently and visibly
>advocated "appropriate technology:"  this is not a fear of nor
>an aversion to new technologies, as appropriate technology can
>be old or new, "low" or "high."
>
>=\= If you won't make the effort to find out this rather basic
>fact about the anti-nuclear movement, what makes you think you
>can presume to make pronouncements about the mindset of people
>in that movement?
>
>> The "fear" is real enough in some people, but it is stim-
>> ulated and maintained because it is useful - - - useful for
>> political, organizational, and financial reasons.
>
>=\= And who would you say has reaped these benefits from this
>fear?  I can think of one or two melodramatic authors and one
>sleazy manufacturer of "ecological" incandescent lights, but
>that's about it.
>
>=\= I've been in anti-nuclear groups since the days of the
>Clamshell Alliance, and I can't think of anyone who's used the
>issue to get money and power.  When we did manage to get some
>power (always from the grassroots), it went into things such
>as voter initiatives (back to the grassroots).
>    <_Jym_>

Mr. Dyer has both confused the discussion (not to mention posting to two
additional newsgroups) in terms of who said what to whom.

In a reply to jmc@cs.stanford.edu, I stated:

  "The 'fear' is real enough in some people, but it is stimulated and
   maintained because it is useful - - - useful for political,
   organizational, and financial reasons.  It is similar to the current
   exploitation of 'family values' in the political campaign.  Some of
   the dolts who are using are sincere, but for many, it is only another
   tool for the acquisition and holding of power."

The other material prompting Mr. Dyer's reply was that of John McCarthy.
His words were not terribly unreasonable, but they were not mine.

I stand by my comments.  I believe that the nuclear issue and many
others have been exploited in order to gain notoriety, public attention,
some measure of political power/leverage, and to raise funds.  This
exploitation can be, in various situations, the product of innocence,
ignorance, or cynicism.  Many of the "true believers" are decent people
with good instincts.  But they are being used.

My active participation in environmental activities only dates back to
the late 60's, so Mr. Dyer may have a much broader experiential and
historical base than do I.  The people that I have known and worked with
are some the best; they are intelligent, highly-principled, and honest.

But around the fringes, something like a mold or fungus, one can now
find those who are not so principled, honest, or intelligent.  By
political standards, they have been successful . . . but then so were
Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan.

As in politics, the ends apparently now justify any means. 
Unfortunately, the means have little to do with truth or science.  
 


Newsgroups: misc.consumers