[ RadSafe ] Balance More on the indefensible attack on dead scientists - asmall correction

Tue May 21 02:05:52 CDT 2013

I have a question:
I am not very familiar with all these international and national "antinuke"
movements at large. I only have heard of Green Peace boats and Concerned
Scientists.
For example, when press/reporters cover the story, they are usually trying
to introduce opposite views. Democrats/Republicans, Pro-life/Pro-choice.
Why and How has this happened that nuclear coverage has became one sided?
For example: Recently, TV station covered Chernobyl Anniversary and said
250,000 people died as a result. I am not even, arguing that this number is
ridiculous, reporters do miss numbers all the time, it is not a problem.
The problem is, why there was no info about for example, how much nuclear
electrical energy produced in Ukraine or California?
I would see it as a balanced coverage.
Is it because that majority of TV viewers would be UNCOMFORTABLE to know
how much nuclear electrical power is produced?
Was it like this ALWAYS (60 yrs)?
But TV news show coverage of killings and disasters all the time, they are
not just uncomfortable but sometimes sickening.
What is making nuclear coverage so 'special' unbalanced?
Why when Gofman expressed his views there was no other views expressed
and covered?
Or they were but no one listened or what something else?
Just curious.

On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 10:34 PM, parthasarathy k s <ksparth at yahoo.co.uk>wrote:

>  Dear Friends
>
>
> The last sentence in my recent message may be modified as " If  any one
> noted this behaviour  and judged him on that count, it
> should not be considered as an indefensible attack on a dead scientist.
>
> Regret the error
> Regards
> Parthasarathy
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>  From: parthasarathy k s <ksparth at yahoo.co.uk>
> To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List <
> radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>; "radsafe at agni.phys.iit.edu" <
> radsafe at agni.phys.iit.edu>
> Sent: Tuesday, 21 May 2013, 10:53
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] More on the indefensible attack on dead
> scientists - Gofman et al
>
>
> Dear radsafers,
>
> I am happy that my routine query on a judgment which describes the
> behavior of Dr John Gofman led to a series of reactions.
>
> When Dr Gofman writes a scientific paper in a peer reviewed journal he
> uses the normal caveats, ifs and buts;but when he addresses the media or
> writes a popular book, his conclusions are clear. definite and final! In
> 1981 or 1982 when he addressed the media probably while launching one of
> his books he was very assertive though his conclusions were based on his
> own exaggerated radiation risk coefficients.
>
> An influential antinuclear group in India believes that whatever he wrote
> is gospel truth. Believe it or not over 36 out of the 132 pages of an anti
> nuclear booklet titled "Nuclear energy:gateway to a disastrous future" are
> filled with references to Gofman's books.
>
> I  accept that his scientific contribution must be the only basis on which
> he should be assessed. But  I believe that this idea will hold if he
> publicized his conclusions with the normal caveats. But while addressing
> the media if he colors his perception and exaggerates radiation risks to
> scare lay people, a few at least will not accept that he was an angel.
> Gofman the scientist was not the Gofman who address the media. If  any one
> noted this behaviour  and judged him on that count, it should not be
> considered as an indefensible attack a dead scientist.
>
> With warm regards
> Parthasarathy
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Steven Dapra <sjd at swcp.com>
> To: radsafe at agni.phys.iit.edu
> Sent: Tuesday, 21 May 2013, 7:51
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] More on the indefensible attack on dead
> scientists - Gofman et al
>
>
>
> May 20
>
>     Gofman claimed a human exposure of 100,000
> man-rems from the Three Mile Island accident, and
> then claimed one death per 300 man-rems.  Since
> no one was exposed to enough radiation to cause a
> fatality, how can Gofman claim any deaths from
> exposure?  Andy took care of this nonsensical
> argument with his analogy about one million rocks
> each weighing one gram.  Gofman’s claim about
> deaths at Three Mile Island are worthless.
>
>     No one is saying or suggesting that since a
> number of deaths is “only” this much instead of a
> much larger amount that the smaller number of
> deaths is acceptable.  Louis Ricciuti is being
> immoral in the way he twists around my line of
> reasoning.  (I am speaking only for myself, not
> Andy Karam.)  As far as any “inbred trait” in the
> nuclear industry is concerned, I have personally
> heard an anti-nuker publicly drag out the immorality argument.
>
>     With respect to medical degrees, how does Louis
> Ricciuti know whether or not I hold a medical
> degree?  Permit me to inform him that John Gofman
> was not a health physicist, nor was he an
> epidemiologist.  So now who lacks the
> (presumably) necessary credentials to draw
> conclusions?  Furthermore, Gofman had a much
> larger following that I do, and had far more
> influence.  Perhaps he should have been held to a higher standard.
>
>     John Gofman published a book in 1999 claiming
> that X-rays caused ischemic heart disease.  In
> his review of Gofman’s book, Stephen Musolino
> (2000), points out a number of its
> shortcomings.  One of Musolino’s points is this:
>
> “According to the American Heart Association, the
> age-adjusted death rate per 100,000 from coronary
> heart disease [as shown in Gofman’s book] has
> dropped over 50% from the mid-sixties to the year
> 1992.  Given that the collective medical x-ray
> dose to the population increased over the same
> period this is a contradiction within [Gofman’s] book itself.”
>
>     Gofman enjoys the status of being a secular
> saint to the anti-nuclear faithful.  I doubt that
> much can be done about this unfortunate state of affairs.
>
>     Like Andy Karam, I am not interested in
> discussing Gofman any further.  I am also telling
> Louis Ricciuti, publicly, DO NOT send me e-mails
> at my private e-mail address.
>
> Steven Dapra
>
>
> REFERENCE
>
> Radiation From Medical Procedures in the
> Pathogenesis of Cancer and Ischemic Heart
> Disease: Does-Response Studies with Physicians
> per 100,000 Population, by John Gofman
> (1999).  Book review in Health Physics, 79(2): 207-208; Aug. 2000.
>
>
>
> [earlier posting today from Andy Karam follows]
>
> May 20
>
> Actually, you misunderstand the point that was
> being made. I doubt that anybody considers deaths
> to be acceptable. The point of this was that Dr.
> Gofman made a simple math mistake that inflated
> his risk calculations. You should also look at
> the number of lives lost in coal mines, in oil
> and gas fields, and in communities affected by
> the waste from mining and petroleum recovery –
> you will certainly find that even Gofman’s
> inflated numbers are far lower than the death
> toll from fossil fuels – and that doesn’t even
> get into the possible impact of climate change.
> If our goal truly is to minimize the loss of life
> from energy production then we have to consider
> ALL of the lives that are affected – not just the
> ones that help us to make our point.
>
> The bottom line is that the availability of
> relatively cheap energy is the most important
> factor globally in helping people to have
> healthier, longer, and better lives. We can
> continue burning fuels – as we have for tens of
> thousands of years – and pumping greenhouse gases
> into the atmosphere. We can continue holding out
> for “alternative” sources of energy – none of
> which are environmentally benign – while millions
> are deprived of the energy that they need. Or we
> can use nuclear energy to help fill the gap
> between the fossil fuels (that are polluting and
> that are running out) and whatever comes next.
>
> Incidentally, I’m not sure what points you’re
> trying to score by pointing out that neither
> Steve Dapra nor I are medical doctors – unless
> you are being uncharacteristically modest in your
> e-mail signature, neither are you. But holding
> (or not) a medical degree has no impact on the
> ability to multiply two numbers (as Gofman did)
> and arrive at the correct result (as he did not).
>
> But I suspect that whatever I say will make no
> dent on your utter certainty, and I will not
> discuss this matter with you further.
>
> Andy
>
> Doubt is an uncomfortable condition, but
> certainty is a ridiculous one. (Voltaire)
>
>
>
> From: NiagaraNet at aol.com [mailto:NiagaraNet at aol.com]
> Sent: Monday, May 20, 2013 1:09 AM
> To: sjd at swcp.com; KARAM, PHILIP
> Cc: niagaranet at aol.com
> Subject: More on the indefensible attack on dead scientists - Gofman et al
>
> Dear Mr. Dapra and Mr. Karam:
>
> So, you both will argue that John W. Gofman,
> M.D., was "wrong" but yet you both expound
> instead on "it's only 50 to 150 DEATHS." Just a
> simple math equation to you both, eh? Sorry guys
> but in "anyone's world" that's just immoral. It
> seems that's an inbred trait throughout your
> industry - that immorality thing! As long as you
> can make a paycheck, 50 to 150 deaths is "OK" in
> the nuclear industry for the general public? You
> wonder why the general public thinks so lowly of this business?
>
> Wonder no more.
>
> And, to boot, neither of you hold a medical degree!
>
> With chagrin,
> Louis Ricciuti
> Niagara Falls _ Lewiston - Porter, NY
> "Los Alamos East"
>
>
>
> [ RadSafe ] Gofman on TMI and Chernobyl deaths
>
> Steven Dapra sjd at swcp.com
> Mon May 13 19:13:25 CDT 2013
> Previous message: [ RadSafe ] Gofman on TMI and Chernobyl deaths
> Next message: [ RadSafe ] Fwd: Carbon dioxide peaks to 400 ppm now
> Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
>
> May 13
>
>           Plus, it's my understanding that 300 rems is LD50, which
> reduces the death toll to about 150.  Whatever the case, Gofman was
> talking nonsense --- as he was wont to do.
>
>           Thank you, Andy, for your analysis.
>
>   Steven Dapra
>
>
> At 07:58 AM 5/13/2013, you wrote:
>
> >Boy, even if you accept his numbers for population dose and accept LNT
> >at any level of exposure the math still doesn't work out. Using a risk
> >coefficient of 5% per Sv a dose of 300 rem (3 Sv) gives a 15% chance of
> >fatal cancer. So (if I remember how to do this, which might not be a
> >good assumption), instead of 333 cancers we'd have 333 x 15% = 50 fatal
> >cancers.
>
> >But even this is likely an over-estimate since virtually all off-site
> >dose to exposed individuals was so low, and since his population dose
> >figure is so high. It brings to mind the ICRP statement that, if the
> >dose to the most-exposed individual is trivial then the dose to all
> >individuals must be considered trivial and it's inappropriate to assume
> >that the collective dose will somehow have an impact. Or to use an
> >analogy I posted earlier, we can't throw a million one-gram rocks at
> >everyone in Cleveland and assume that, because the cumulative weight is
> >a ton, a few people will be crushed.
>
> >Andy
>
> >-----Original Message-----
>
> >From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
> >[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Steven Dapra
> >Sent: Friday, May 10, 2013 11:22 PM
> >To: radsafe at agni.phys.iit.edu
>
> >Subject: [ RadSafe ] Gofman on TMI and Chernobyl deaths
>
> >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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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:
> http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
>
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
> visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu
> _______________________________________________
> 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:
> http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
>
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
> visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu
> _______________________________________________
> 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:
> http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
>
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
> visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu
>