[ RadSafe ] A judges' criticism of John W Gofman ? Arthur R Tamplin?
sjd at swcp.com
Mon May 13 20:51:44 CDT 2013
This should have gone to RADSAFE. Through an error on my
part it went elsewhere.
Pointing out someone's errors does not constitute maligning him.
According to his entry on Wikipedia, Gofman was an eminent
cardiologist. Wikipedia does not specifically note that he did any
work on cholesterol or on high blood pressure. ("The researchers
[Gofman, et al.] described low-density and high-density lipoproteins
and their roles in metabolic disorders and coronary
No matter how good a cardiologist Gofman may have been, he
was not a health physicist and his comments and claims about that
discipline have no merit. They are junk, and so are Tamplin's.
Relying again on Wikipedia, Gofman claimed there would be
333 deaths as a result of low-level exposure from the Three Mile
Island accident. As far as I know, no such deaths have ever been
reported. (Corrections are welcome.) He also claimed one million
malignancies from Chernobyl, and that one-half of them would be
fatal. This claim is (of course) stupendously false. Wikipedia does
not source these claims attributed to Gofman, however it is easy to
believe he would have made them.
As far as publishing is concerned, Gofman's magnum opus,
"Radiation and Human Health," was published by the Sierra Club Press
--- a well-known scientific publishing house. (Ha, ha.) He did not
publish in the peer-reviewed journals such as Health Physics or
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