[ RadSafe ] Gofman on TMI and Chernobyl deaths

[Steven Dapra]

May 10

         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:

http://www.ratical.org/radiation/CNR/PP/Foreward1979.txt

         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:

http://www.mindfully.org/Nucs/Radiation-Threshold-Gofman20jun94.htm

         The quote is near the beginning of the interview.

Steven Dapra


At 05:27 AM 5/9/2013, you wrote:
>Re:
><http://health.phys.iit.edu/archives/2013-April/subject.html#start>http://health.phys.iit.edu/archives/2013-April/subject.html#start
>and
><http://health.phys.iit.edu/archives/2013-May/subject.html#start>http://health.phys.iit.edu/archives/2013-May/subject.html#start
>
>
>All:
>
>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.
>
>
>Regrets,
>Lou Ricciuti
>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

[edit]