[ RadSafe ] German professor with ideas about nuclear power & health effects

Ben Fore BenjB4 at gmail.com
Sun May 4 04:56:02 CDT 2008

Dear Dr. Cedervall,

Your comment goes right to the heart of epidemiology:

> I don't think that a scientist who refers to Sternglass is serious.
> Sternglass was once asked about a correlation between
> childhood cancers and the vicinity on nuclear power plants -
> essentially "why didn't you correlate with the predominating
> wind direction?". Sternglass replied that he didn't get as good
> correlations that way....

Where is wind so predominately in one direction only that
aerosol dispersion is anything close to unidirectional?

Is it better to quantify risk by observation, i.e., using the
geographic correlation of adverse health outcomes to
determine exposure patterns, or is it better to assume
that they are a particular shape in advance?

Similarly, is it better to quantify the extent of adverse health
outcomes of a particular substance, such as reactor
radioisotope emissions or uranium smoke, or are those facts
better left unknown?

The thirst for knowledge is what separates the scientists
from the lobbyists.

Do you, Dr. Cedervall, support the empirical quantification
of the extent of reproductive harm of uranium smoke and its
uranyl ion?

James Salsman, as Ben Fore

More information about the RadSafe mailing list