Re: The UCS study on Nuclear Plant Risk Studies

[Jim Muckerheide <jmuckerheide@delphi.com>]

Ted Rockwell wrote:
> 
> Jim Dukelow:
> 
> Excellent analysis!  I hope everyone on this list reads it.  I admire your
> coolness in appraising UCS's outrageous statements and assumptions. You
> responded factually, withholding emotion.

That's good, but unfortunately many such "factual analyses" and "unemotionally
cool" appraisals have gotten nowhere in several decades. Voluminous data that
contradict such "advocates" has been very deliberately- and well-documented,
re e.g., Gofman, et al., as well as non-science perpetrators as UCS.

But such "scientists" as Gofman, and "non-science" advocates such as the Rocky
Flats anti-nukes are said by Meinhold to influence NCRP "decisions." ("We are
in the middle!" he said proudly/defiantly - pick one, as recently last month
at the House hearings!) 

NCRP is trying to issue its dishonest SC 1-6 supporting the LNT (the Exec
Summary was provided at the House hearing - I don't have an electronic
version). It still simply ignores the voluminous data and science that
contradict the LNT, just like the draft. (At this point there may be a delay!?
Maybe some Committee member is showing some integrity?) 

> This is a real service.  We all should do more of this kind of work.  

This is certainly true for papers in the literature to be a good "resource."
But we know from our experience that those who clearly choose to fail to see
no evil/truth, hear no evil/truth, or speak no evil/truth, will not be
affected. 

> I'm filing it in my "Scientific Misconduct" file.  This sort of report by UCS 
> is not a legitimate difference of opinion among scientists.  It's a deliberate
> effort to mislead by using scientific misconduct.  Any pre-publication
> reviewers of this document are complicit in the misdeed.

But UCS is not subject to "sci misconduct" standards. However, NCRP is doing
the same. Are NCRP "scientists" subject to "sci misconduct" standards?  We may
be able to find out!? :-)

As someone on the list said, such decisions should be up to an adjudicating
body. Maybe we need to get on with it!

> Thanks.
> 
> TR

Regards, Jim
muckerheide@mediaone.net
========================
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html