Re: Request for suggestion

[Jim Muckerheide <jmuckerheide@delphi.com>]

Hi Bernie,

Bernard L Cohen wrote:
> 
> On Thu, 14 Dec 2000, Jim Muckerheide wrote:
> 
> > Bernard L Cohen wrote:
> > >         --I am using the entire spectrum of meltdown accidents, with their
> > > probabilities, as given by the Probabilistic Risk Analyses like WASH-1400
> >
> > But then the consequence analysis is fiction, and part of fear-mongering about
> > radiation effects.
> 
>         --If you believe that Probabilistic Risk Analysis (PRA) is
> fiction, how do you explain to the public that the consequences of reactor
> accidents are not an important problem? To the public, this is the most
> important problem.
>         I see no reason not to believe in the PRAs, including all the
> studies of actual experience that have been used to verify the PRAs.

The plant response part of PRA's are fine.  The health effects from
release/pathway/dose analyses are fictional, if not fraudulent.  Apply the
release/health effects fiction to  Chernobyl.

>         The public should not be exposed to debates among credible
> scientists; that will only confuse them. 

People who ignore the data to claim the LNT applies are not credible.

>In dealing with the public, I
> think we should use only things that are generally accepted within the
> scientific community. 

If you mean "scientifically accepted, ok.  But the LNT relies on intentionally
ignoring a suppressing data by bureaucrats and their minions.

>For example, if I were writing a book about nuclear
> power for the public today, I would still use linear-no threshold theory
> (in spite of the fact that I have clearly shown that it fails), although I
> would include a chapter on why this gives gross over-estimates. 

In other words you would explain why it's wrong.  That's ok.

But your demonstration of its failure is still only a small part of the wealth
of biological and epidemiological data that disprove the LNT to anyone.  After
all, real people show lower cancer rates, and cancer prevention and treatment
in specific cases that demonstrate enhanced immune, hormone, enzyme, and
physiological performance in molecular biology responses. See, e.g., the
extensive work in Dr. Liu's laboratory that I recently ref'd here.

>The case
> for nuclear power is strong enough that there is no need for introducing
> controversial arguments.

I agree.  But I propose that we must not misrepresent facts simply because it
is "expedient" for our "cause."  That is the questionable practice that is the
fundamental problem of science today.  (We haven't come very far from Galileo
when "political" and "financial" interests dictate scientific results.  The
new effort to address "scientific misconduct" is a recognition of that
problem, though is still too narrow and tepid.) 

The problem is much greater than nuclear power.  Correcting it by exposing the
abuse of radiation health effects data can help generally correct this
fundamental problem, the very reason that you can not get your data accepted,
even with extensive corroborating data and independent analysis by Colditz and
other epidemiologists - and recognized by the fear of those people, and
others, to question this in the science community.  This is intrinsic to
"renewable energy" and a hundred other political causes, aided and abetted by
people who call themselves "scientists" with no accountability (they could
lose their license if they were engineers or doctors, etc., disbarred if they
were lawyers, etc., but even Gofman can call himself a scientist 30 years
after being 'defrocked,' and treated seriously by NCRP and Fed agencies to
keep the political fraud going, with Meinhold claiming NCRP "must be in the
middle between Gofman and Cohen.")  If we address false science with
appropriate sanctions for fraud, it will free the public from a great deal of
crap that is destroying society as a whole.
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html