[ RadSafe ] A judges' criticism of John W Gofman ? Arthur R Tamplin?

[Perle, Sandy]

That about says it all .. The "Brady Bunch", Gofman, Tamplin and KZ Morgan!

-----------------------------------
Sander C. Perle
President
Mirion Technologies
Dosimetry Services Division
2652 McGaw Avenue
Irvine, CA 92614

+1 (949) 296-2306 (Office)
+1 (949) 296-1130 (Fax)

Mirion Technologies: http://www.mirion.com/
”Protecting people, property and the environment”

From: "csimmons at csimmonslaw.com<mailto:csimmons at csimmonslaw.com>" <csimmons at csimmonslaw.com<mailto:csimmons at csimmonslaw.com>>
Reply-To: "csimmons at csimmonslaw.com<mailto:csimmons at csimmonslaw.com>" <csimmons at csimmonslaw.com<mailto:csimmons at csimmonslaw.com>>, "The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List" <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu<mailto:radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>>
Date: Monday, April 29, 2013 2:02 PM
To: "The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List" <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu<mailto:radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>>
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] A judges' criticism of John W Gofman ? Arthur R Tamplin?



Hello -

I'm not certain if this is the particular case in mind, but in Johnson v. United
States, 597 F. Supp. 374 (1984), U.S. District Judge Kelly had some choice words
about Dr. Gofman's testimony on behalf of plaintiffs alleging cancer resulting
from exposure to radium in aircraft dials:


"Indeed, he [Gofman] is an alarmist, truly, obsessed with the righteousness of
his long espoused concerns regarding exposure to radiation in any setting. The
witness is quite clear: the United States' positions are "rubbish." While he
professes a sense of hesitancy for having taken up these cases, it is clear from
the outset that this man enjoys the "limelight" (see also, his report, Ex.
18,954), and is no stranger to the courtroom."


The case presents a remarkable example of Judge Kelly's sifting through health
physics evidence presented by plaintiff's and defendant's (the U.S. government)
experts.  It is more remarkable that the case predates Daubert v. Merrill Dow,
509 U.S. 579, 1993, which articulated principles by which the Judge functions as
"gatekeeper" of "expert scientific" testimony
Regards,

Charles Simmons


On April 29, 2013 at 4:06 PM Maury Siskel <maurysis at peoplepc.com<mailto:maurysis at peoplepc.com>> wrote:

Any chance anyone might recall the name of the judge cited below?  I'll
try the search, but Gofman only doesn't get my search  very far ...  Thanks,
Maury&Dog  [MaurySiskel maurysis at peoplepc.com<mailto:maurysis at peoplepc.com>]
============================

On 4/29/2013 12:18 PM, parthasarathy k s wrote:
> Dear Radsafers,
>
> You may recall that Prof John W Gofman an eminent scientist became an ardent
> critic of nuclear power. During the latter half of his career he used to
> appear before judges as expert on harmful effects of ionizing radiation.
>
> In one such case, a level headed judge made some scathing comments on the
> biased and irrational approach of Prof Gofman I am  not sure whether the
> judge expressed himself strongly against Dr Arthur R Tamplin, a close
> associate of Dr Gofman.
> If any of you recall the episode, I shall greatly appreciate receiving
> details of it at the earliest.
>
> With best regards
> Parthasarathy
>
_______________________________________________
You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list

Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the
RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html

For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit:
http://health.phys.iit.edu
_______________________________________________
You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list

Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html

For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu