TO:  BNL Media Relations
FROM:  Bruce A. Martin

As a BNL employee and neighbor, I appreciate the prompt 
initial response from the Director to the latest attempt 
by our "Representative" to kill the HFBR.  

I also appreciate that, as a responsible individual, and especially 
as one representing a scientific laboratory, the Director must
limit himself to facts -- regardless of whether or not others
such as Mr. Forbes choose to do so.  Thus, the statement that 
our so-called "Representative" is "taking a position on the 
High Flux Beam Reactor that is consistent with their previous 
actions" is factually correct and perhaps was the only comment
that could be made at this time, without further study.

Nevertheless, I hope this one statement does not represent BNL's
or BSA's final word on the matter.  

I am glad that at least one of Michael Forbes' previous lies 
(i.e. the claim that there was a "leaking reactor") has been 
omitted from his latest attack.  Nevertheless , there remain 
several falsehoods which remain to be refuted by subsequent 
releases from the Laboratory.

Further, I hope that future BNL comments will point out that the
Department of Energy has been entirely correct in following the 
most appropriate process, i.e. investigating the situation, 
determining the facts, and THEN making a judgement based 
upon the facts.  This scientifically valid and deliberative
process should be contrasted sharply with the political
statements which make assertions that cannot be substantiated 
by any facts yet discovered in the ongoing studies, such as
the following ones from the politicians' press release:

	-- that the HFBR has ever "threaten[ed] our environment" 
or 
	-- that restarting would "jeopardize our environment 
	and drinking water".

Personally, I view unsupportable statements like these as pure 
demagoguery, intended to deceive and mislead the public.  My own 
opinion, as a citizen, is that when a public official makes such 
false statements, it is a disgraceful abuse of authority and 
violative of public trust.  I fully realize that public institutions 
(and their managers) are not as free as individual citizens to 
express such strong opinions.  

However, that does not mean that a public institution must suffer 
falsehoods in silence!

While I realize that, as a scientific institution, the Laboratory
must always remain objective and cannot sink to the level of those
who make baseless attacks against it, I would like to point out to
the management that the public which surrounds it generally looks 
to nearby Laboratories and Universities as a source of scientific
guidance.  Therefore, when misstatements such as the above are made 
and the premier scientific establishment in the vicinity does not 
address them, the public may well interpert that acquiescence as 
agreement.  

In short, I suggest that silence is not an option which is neutral.
A mere recitation of radiation levels without any meaningful
correlation to biological impacts does not suffice, either.
The specific assertions made against the laboratory, to the 
extent they are unsupported, must be addressed and refuted
in a way that removes any doubt from the mind of the lay public
that the assertions are indeed baseless.  I reject the notion
that BNL is somehow constrained from doing so.

>From my own professional and personal knowledge, I happen to be
aware that even if a preson actually drank daily from the worst
part of the Tritium plume, that the exposure would be comparable 
to the natural radiation which one obtains by sleeping nightly 
next to another human.  I also understand that the quantity of 
tritium in the entire plume is a fraction of that in one aircraft
exit sign, and is probably less than that which washed up on the
beaches after the crash of TWA flight 800.  I insist that neither
the Laboratory's status nor its involvement disqualify it from
making statements of this nature to show how ridiculous are certain
of the claims that have been made by some politicians and special 
interest groups.

If the laboratory were falsely accused of fraud or embezzlement, 
its management would not hesitate to address the specific charges, 
and would promptly refute any false charges with facts.  Why should 
there be any difference when the facts are of a scientific nature?  
In fact, the laboratory's competence to address erroneous scientific 
claims is certainly no less than for financial or legal statements.  

Unfortunately, the Laboratory's silence in the face of false 
scientific claims is often interpreted as "guilt" in the minds 
of much of the public.  

Therefore, I ask the management of the laboratory to begin a
pro-active campaign of forcefully refuting false, baseless,
demagogic scare-tactics with the same vigor and skill that it 
has been recently promoting the good works, discoveries, and 
prizes of the instution.

Sincerely,
Bruce A. Martin

(For identification only:  BNL, RHIC project.  Extension 5647.)




NOTE:  Feel free to consider this letter for publication 
(or for excerpts which preserve context) in the Brookhaven 
Bulletin or elsewhere.