[ RadSafe ] Gofman on TMI and Chernobyl deaths
sjd at swcp.com
Fri May 10 22:22:11 CDT 2013
Gofman claimed a human exposure of
100,000 man-rems from the Three Mile Island
accident. He then claimed one death per 300
man-rems. Dividing 100,000 by 300 gives 333
deaths from Three Mile Island --- at least in Gofman's world.
He made this claim in the Foreword to
the 1979 printing of his book "Poisoned
Power." The Foreword will be found at this link:
To find his specific claim about the
number of deaths, scroll down the page about
two-thirds of the way to the paragraph beginning
"Now we are ready to solve our equation."
For Gofman's claims of deaths resulting
from the Chernobyl accident, see a 1994 interview
with Gofman in "Synapse," the student newspaper
published by the University of California in San
Francisco. In the interview, Gofman said:
"After Chernobyl, I estimated that there were
going to be 475,000 fatal cancers throughout
Europe with another 475,000 cancers that are
not fatal. That estimate was based on the dose
released on the various countries of fallout from Cesium-137."
The link is:
The quote is near the beginning of the interview.
At 05:27 AM 5/9/2013, you wrote:
>As you malign yet another dead scientist, I find
>myself commenting once again to the Radsafe
>group in the defense of those that stand tall
>beyond the grave, while others living, can only
>be found to 'stoop low.' How sad.
>I knew John Gofman and not one of you folks will
>ever be able to hold a candle to his life's work
>regardless of what shameless things you say or
>do in the name of your own brand of "science."
>Apologies if that sounds harsh. When you take
>your blood pressure or cholesterol medication
>this morning (if you do so), please also think
>of John W. Gofman, M.D.'s work in that area too.
>Maligning the work of these two men (Gofman,
>Tamplin and others living and dead as I've read
>on the Radsafe list) is a tacit condemnation of
>your own industry and business self-interests.
>At least that's quite transparent to those of us
>reading in. There are few if any on the Radsafe
>list that have the publishing "legs," the
>scientific longevity, the educational
>background, years in the field, shear experience
>or accomplishment overall that the two
>scientists being maligned in your postings have.
>Anyone? What on earth is scientific about that?
>The dismissing of any scientific opinion in the
>supposed discourse of it, is not science at all.
>Put your CVs up to compare with either Gofman or Tamplin's please!
> From one of John's many testimonials:
>"He always stood up for the integrity of
>science," said Charles Weiner, professor
>emeritus of the history of science at MIT.
>Thankfully, of course, it's quite well known
>that what you folks practice isn't really science anyway.
>Niagara Falls - Lewiston - Porter - Youngstown, New York
>"Los Alamos East"
><mailto:blhamrick at aol.com>blhamrick at aol.com
><mailto:steve.schulin at nuclear.com>steve.schulin at nuclear.com
><mailto:edmond0033 at comcast.net>edmond0033 at comcast.net
><mailto:brent.s.rogers at gmail.com>brent.s.rogers at gmail.com
><mailto:maurysis at peoplepc.com>maurysis at peoplepc.com
><mailto:howard.long at comcast.net>howard.long at comcast.net
><mailto:bobcherry at satx.rr.com>bobcherry at satx.rr.com
><mailto:feinendegen at gmx.net>feinendegen at gmx.net
><mailto:tinyyoli at aol.com>tinyyoli at aol.com
><mailto:ANDREW.KARAM at nypd.org>ANDREW.KARAM at nypd.org
><mailto:sjd at swcp.com>sjd at swcp.com
More information about the RadSafe