I would not quarrel with Dr. Conrad E. Nagle’s arguments regarding the beneficial effects of radiation nor with his own perspective as a radiologist (Voice, Feb. 9). Some of us, beyond those few who gave their “informed” consent to experimental medical treatment, are concerned about our government’s policy.
For us the primary issue is the fact that thousands of men, women and children were exposed to dangerous levels of radiation from nuclear weapons tests and were not asked for their “informed consent” to such exposure. They were told that they were not under any risk or were told nothing at all.
Presumably, there were “practical” reasons for that policy. There was an arrogant attitude that ordinary people should accept the risks because the tests were being conducted for their benefit. In addition, it enabled our government to avoid the risk of being charged with the cost of care and compensation for those who had been injured. Some of us who escaped unscathed might approve of such fiscal economy, but it hardly represents moral or ethical behavior on the part of our government.
