Quote:
Originally Posted by gmw
I was not intending to address your meaning so much as the author's, but since I used your phrasing it certainly gives that impression. Sorry about that.
Quite likely the author has a similar right to say that I misrepresent her meaning as well, since she does not use the words "evil" or "mean-spirited" either. But if I start trying to explain how I got such an impression from the book I will just end up repeating myself, so I'll leave it alone.
|
I don't disagree that the author sets up the account as the good guys vs. the bad guys. And yes, in hindsight, the delineation is sharper than it most likely was in the beginning days of the use of radium. But what frustrates me is that you seem to be making a lot of excuses for the bad guys, ignorance perhaps being the main excuse.
I think the story can be viewed as a cautionary tale, a reminder not to believe every claim and every assurance from those with a vested interest in a product and a company. I think that excusing the ignorance of a company means this kind of thing will happen again and again, so I'm not willing to say that, at the beginning, Oh, they didn't know, they didn't intend harm. They should have known. They knew enough to try to safeguard the men in the laboratories; did it really never enter anyone's mind that, hey, maybe actually ingesting radium might be a bad idea?