[ RadSafe ] A judges' criticism of John W Gofman ? Arthur RTamplin?
sjd at swcp.com
Sun May 5 19:36:36 CDT 2013
Of course, Gofman's and Tamplin's deaths are mathematically
derived deaths. They can't show us death certificates or autopsies
any more than they can show us corpses. I wonder how they
rationalized deaths from smoking cigarettes. We can live without
cigs too. (No pun intended.)
At 04:58 PM 5/5/2013, you wrote:
> 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
>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 ?
> 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:
> > Brent,
> > 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
More information about the RadSafe