[ RadSafe ] A judges' criticism of John W Gofman ? Arthur RTamplin?
ANDREW.KARAM at nypd.org
Mon May 6 10:05:57 CDT 2013
Using "collective dose" we can also show that throwing a 1-gram rock at
everybody in Cleveland should cause a few deaths from crushing - since
the aggregate weight will be close to a ton and we know that you can
crush several people with a ton of rocks.
In reality, exposing each of a million people (or a billion) to a
trivial dose of radiation should have no more impact than exposing each
of a million people (or a billion) to a trivial dose of rock.
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Steven Dapra
Sent: Sunday, May 05, 2013 8:37 PM
To: tinyyoli; The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics)
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] A judges' criticism of John W Gofman ? Arthur
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
><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
>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
> > Several years ago, I worked with Gofman and Tamplin at LLNL.
> Although I did
> > agree with their "logic", I could understand how their application
> > 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,
> > additional deaths would occur. Of course, the news media had a field
> > 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
More information about the RadSafe