Re: Dr. John Gofman

Russell,

I am sure if you limit your search to the Internet and anti-nuclear newsletters, you will not find any negative information about about Dr. Gofman's work. I have been a health physicist since 1975 and take my profession seriously. I do not consider what I do to be a hobby or "cause." There are a number of individuals for have worked in radiation science and protection, and have taken on the role of savior of humanity. Dr. Gofman is not the only one. Unfortunately, their cause may blind them to good science. An example of a challenge to Dr. Gofman's analysis of risks was noted by the then President-Elect of the Health Physics Society, Robert Alexander, (Health Physics 56(1): 117) who reported that 98% on the respondance to a survey rejected Dr. Gofman's assertions that low radiaton doses are hazardous. While Dr. Gofman may be a celebrity with the anit-radiation crowd, he ideas on radiation hazards have not ! found acceptance with others.

While others on these lists may provide additional references, consider the following comment regarding Dr. Gofman I copied from an e-mail in March 1998:

There was a court case, ADA G. JOHNSTON, et. al. vs. THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al. with a judgement filed in 1984. This case involved several
plaintiffs suing a company (Aircraft Instrument and Development, Inc. of
Witchita, Kansas) for cancer caused from radiation exposure while in their
employ. The judge's Memorandum and Decision was scathing of both Gofman
and K. Z. Morgan. He did find "...fully in favor of defendant...."

For those interested, it was filed in US District Court for the District of
Kansas. Numbers 81-1060, 81-1061, 82-1537, 81-1100, 82-1539, 81-1101, and
82-1538.

IMHO, the judges decision is a great, entertaining read. He appeared to do
a very good job of gleaning the facts from the other stuff.

Or the following received in May 1999:

Gofman wrote in part: "... By any reasonable standard of biomedical
proof, there is no safe dose..."

Why focus on cellular effects when we have an ongoing study
population that completely explodes the above myth?

When Gofman says "there is no safe dose", that means that anyone
receiving a plutonium uptake (down to one atom) would eventually
develop some type of radiogenic cancer.

The paper by Voelz, et al in HPJ V. 73 No. 4 (1997), "Fifty years of
plutonium exposure to the Manhattan Project plutonium workers: an
update," blows Gofman's "no safe dose" blather out of the water.

The individual with the highest deposition (3180 Bq) at the end of
1994 was 86 years old and exhibited the medical profile one would
expect of a person that age ( e.g., hearing loss, benign prostatic
hypertrophy). 9 of the 10 individuals with the highest doses were
still alive and well at the end of the '94 study (minimum 1160 Bq, ED
= ! 3.0 Sv).

Of course, I do not expect you to agree with the negative conclusions about Dr. Gofman's work, as that would require a radical change in your viewpoint, and a more fundamental understanding of radiation science and effects.

"Russell D. Hoffman" <rhoffman@animatedsoftware.com> wrote:

May 27th,. 2003

Sir,

I have looked and looked for the documentation which supposedly discredits Dr. Gofman. So far, not one person can provide it to me, obviously including you. So you have no right to doubt whether I'd believe it or not. I wonder if you even have any idea what his very real contributions to nuclear research have been over the years?

In any event, if you actually took the time to research what he's been studying lately, and specifically what he was talking about in his April newsletter (x-ray dangers), I think you'd (assuming you have an open mind) have a lot of trouble doubting his research. His scientific methodologies are exacting and appropriate, and the studies I was referring to refute Bernard Cohen's claims specifically, and most of the other dogma you "health physicists" believe.

Regarding your wife's ! uncle's leukemia at forty-something, join the boat. My brother died at 39 of leukemia, also with no known ties to the nuclear industry, weapons, etc.. He did, however, live downwind from Three Mile Island and perhaps that was the cause. About 100 miles downwind, which may seem too far to you, but I'll assume (unless you can prove to me differently) that that's because you haven't studied wind patterns (and fallout patters specifically) very carefully.

Sincerely,

Russell Hoffman
Carlsbad, CA

At 01:02 PM 5/27/2003 , John Jacobus <crispy_bird@yahoo.com> wrote:

Russell,
Dr. Gofman has been discredited within the radiation science and safety community for many years. I am sure that there are others on this list who could point you to appropriate references about the failings of his works. However, I doubt you would believe them as they do not fit your agenda.

While I am sorry to hear that Gary Colley has cancer, many people do. Actually, one in four in this country. My wife's uncle developed leukemia at forty-something. He never worked for DOE facilities, and there was no history of cancer in his family. Who do you think he should blame or sue?

"Russell D. Hoffman" <rhoffman@animatedsoftware.com> wrote:

Sir,

I don't suppose there's any chance you read Dr. John W. Gofman's April, 2003 Committee for Nuclear Responsibility newsletter?
If not, you should. It would sure be a pleasure to hear your learned, thoughtful, educated, scientific, truthful response. Are you up for the challenge, or are insensitive comments your only forte?

. . .