[ RadSafe ] A judges' criticism of John W Gofman ? Arthur RTamplin?
tinyyoli at aol.com
Sun May 5 17:58:11 CDT 2013
I used the same argument. The response was that we can't do anything about
natural radiation, but we can live without nuclear power plants. In either case,
we are talking about a small fraction of the overall death rate.
From: Steven Dapra <sjd at swcp.com>
To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
<radsafe at agni.phys.iit.edu>
Sent: Sun, May 5, 2013 2:10:17 PM
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] A judges' criticism of John W Gofman ? Arthur RTamplin?
Background radiation exposes that ~300 million to approximately 2.5
times 170 mrem/a. Show us the corpses, (Messrs. Gofman and Tamplin).
At 02:38 PM 5/5/2013, you wrote:
> I agree. It is certainly possible for good scientists to have bad
> Several years ago, I worked with Gofman and Tamplin at LLNL. Although I did
> agree with their "logic", I could understand how their application of ICRP
> guidance might lead to several thousands " additional deaths" in this country.
> Simply stated, they "reasoned" that if the entire population of the USA (~ 300
> million) were exposed to a maximum allowable dose of 170 mrem/a, roughly
> additional deaths would occur. Of course, the news media had a field day
> publicizing this "revelation". Although I could not agree with the reasoning,
> their math seemed OK. I hesitate to suggest it, but perhaps the "logic" used
> development of the ICRP guidance should be open to some question.
> Jerry Cohen
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:
For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit:
More information about the RadSafe