[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Credibility of Doctors for Disaster Preparedness

Nuclear Safety Scientists and HPs, (sorry for the expansive steam),

I challenge this Dukelow slander of Doctors for Disaster Preparedness and AAPS because I hope some of you will join us.

A cause of WTC collapse was asbestos fearmongering, detailed by Andy Schafly to DDP July 27. Dukelow describes DDP as "a gathering of conservative propagandists of various stripes". Oh? Were our speakers? They were not only, 1, Jerry Cuttler, designer of safety systems for CANDU 6, but also, 2, Henry Lamb, EVP of the Environmental Conservation Org., 3&4, Sallie Baliunas and Willie Soon of Harvard-Smithsonian Astrophysical Observ., 5, Herbert Inhaber, formerly of Canada's Atomic Energy Control Board, 6, Jay Lehr, editor of McGraw Hill env.science handbook, 7 Jay Kerrigan, mathematician, 8, Ed Zebronsk, editor of Advanced Nuclear Reactors, etc..  Lowell Wood of LLNL updated his year 2,000 presentation with Edward Teller.  
Will you call any of these scientists, "propagandists", to their faces, James Dukelow?
Come to our next meeting!

I am proud to serve as one of 8 DDP directors. We include 3 radiologists and Executive Director Jane Orient MD, former physics prof and Exec Dir of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons. Dukelow writes, "blathering of a lawyer [Schafly] for a conservative association of doctors (not the AMA - too liberal for the AAPS)."  
Our AAPS is currently sueing the government (with the ACLU) to preserve patient privacy. Does "liberal" now mean, "Clinton-Mussolini Plan collaboration", like AMA? AAPS puts patients first, as AMA once did. AAPS promotes "Patient Power".from Dallas NCPA and the libertarian CATO Inst.

I, too, trust few lawyers to be honest. Schafly has been unfailingly accurate in scientific matters where I had independent knowledge. I give MORE weight to Schafly's review than the opinion of "qualified engineers and architects"  on the payroll of parties at interest.

Howard Long MD MPH, (10 year attendee at yearly meetings of AAPS and DDP) 

Jerry Cuttler wrote:

From this exchange, we are learning more about a very important subject.  I'll certainly have a look at the FEMA report. The personal attacks are not helpful.  We ought to present information dispassionately.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2002 3:29 AM
Subject: RE: [cdn-nucl-l] Fw: reply to WTC/asbestos inquiry
 
I suppose you can consider this as "controversial" if you give equal weight
to an official study of the conditions of failure of the WTC buildings by
qualified engineers and architects and the blathering of a lawyer for a
conservative association of doctors (not the AMA -- too liberal for the
AAPS) speaking at a gathering of conservative propagandists of various
stripes.  Jerry would seem to be the odd man out in that collection, but
perhaps he can characterize that better than I.

A couple of points.

It is not the case that asbestos is a better insulator than the
alternatives.  It is cheaper than the alternatives, because it can be mined
and they have to be manufactured.

It is not the case that any part of the WTC towers was left uninsulated.

The WTC fire included both the jet fuel and the in-building combustibles,
plus the effect of the jetliner crashes which compromised the building fire
protection systems and probably shivered loose much of the spray-on
insulation.  The other fires Schlafly cites involved only in-building
combustibles.  One of the WTC buildings, WTC 7, I believe, was the first
high rise to fail due to a building fire, without only a large diesel fuel
tank as a complicating factor.

You might want to read Michael Schermer's column in the current Scientific
American, "Why smart people believe weird things" or just go to the report
of the official panel, available at <www.fema.gov> and read what qualified
observers have to say.

Best regards.

Jim Dukelow
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
Richland, WA
jim.dukelow@pnl.gov

These comments are mine and have not been reviewed and/or approved by my
management or by the U.S. Department of Energy.
 

-----Original Message-----
From: Jerry Cuttler
To: cdn-nucl-l (E-mail); Ans-pie; rad-sci-l@ans.ep.wisc.edu
Sent: 8/26/2002 9:12 PM
Subject: [cdn-nucl-l] Fw: reply to WTC/asbestos inquiry

This seems to be a very controversial topic.
Below is additional information from Andrew Schlafly.
August just seemed to be too quiet.
Jerry

----- Original Message -----
From: Aschlafly@aol.com <mailto:Aschlafly@aol.com>
To: berol.robinson@chello.fr <mailto:berol.robinson@chello.fr>
Cc: jerrycuttler@rogers.com <mailto:jerrycuttler@rogers.com>  ;
jersnav@mindspring.com <mailto:jersnav@mindspring.com>  ;
jorient@mindspring.com <mailto:jorient@mindspring.com>  ; real@ieee.org
<mailto:real@ieee.org>  ; AltonJohn@charter.net
<mailto:AltonJohn@charter.net>
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2002 3:46 PM
Subject: reply to WTC/asbestos inquiry

To: Dr. Berol Robinson, Scientific Committee of the International
Association of Environmentalists For Nuclear Energy

Thank for your inquiry about my speech concerning the collapse of the
World Trade Center towers and its lack of asbestos.  (A full copy of my
speech is available upon request.)

You asked: "I would be grateful to receive any available references
confirming the fact that, after the installation of asbestos was halted
at the about the 50th floor of WTC 1, no substitute thermal protection
was installed in WTC 1 and nor any in WTC 2; or, on the other hand, that
the substitute was that much inferior to asbestos."

A ceramic substitute for asbestos was used, but it was not nearly as
effective in protecting buildings against fire as asbestos is (almost
nothing is).

The WTC collapsed due a fire that is considered not as intense as the
fire in the Los Angeles skyscraper known as the First Interstate Bank
building.  That building easily survived the intense fire.  See
http://www.hera.org.nz/PDF%20Files/World%20Trade%20Centre.pdf

You may also find this useful, from
http://ktla.trb.com/technology/chi-0109150190sep15.story :

"I have to say the collapse of buildings this size is a little bit
surprising," said James Milke, associate professor of the University of
Maryland's department of fire protection engineering, referring to the
Trade Center towers.
Milke, who is chairman of an industry committee looking at structural
design for fire conditions, described the steel's performance as
"disappointing" when compared to that of steel columns and beams in
other major fires in skyscrapers.
He points to the nation's two largest previous fires in high-rise
offices.
A fire raged for 19 hours on the 22nd floor of the 38-story Meridian
Bank Building in Philadelphia in February 1991 and a blaze in May 1988
lasted for 3 1/2 hours in the 62-story First Interstate Bank in Los
Angeles.

Neither building came close to collapse, although firefighters were
unable to tackle them for some time, he says.
"How was the construction there different from the Trade Center?" Milke
asks.
Corley, too, wants answers to such questions but also cautions against
comparisons, given the unique nature of the Trade Center collapse.
"Some of the fire protection may have been compromised as debris from
above fell," said Corley. "This is something we are looking at."

The buildings' fire protection measures raise important questions.
When the 1,360-foot-tall towers opened in 1973, they were thought to be
the first steel structures to use non-asbestos fireproofing, according
to the National Council of Structural Engineers Association.

Andy Schlafly
_______________________________________________
cdn-nucl-l mailing list
cdn-nucl-l@mailman.McMaster.CA
http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/cdn-nucl-l