[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
My comments and citations reagarding Dr. Gofman
Dear all,
I am responding to the following from Mr. Ricciuti (niagranet).
-------------------------------------
RE: RICCIUTI Comment
It is interesting to note that Mr. Barnes comment is sans accreditation
regarding the Silkwood-v-Kerr-McGee case and Gofman's expert testimony. What
Mr. James Barnes failed to mention in his attempt to discredit Dr. John
Gofman, was, that the "quotation/citation" he used were apparently the
comments of the plaintiff's attorney and not the finding of the court. The
"citation", quoted by Barnes as being from American Jurisprudence, Proof of
Facts, can be found in the previous posting he made. When researched, it was
found that Chief Judge Emeritus, United States District Court--District of
Kansas, Judge Frank G. Theis, Senior Judge in the above referenced case found
quite differently than was quoted by Barnes regarding Dr. John Gofman and
Karl Morgan as expert witnesses. See: The Angry Genie, Karl Z. Morgan,
University of Oklahoma Press, Independent Appraisal of John Gofman and Karl
Morgan as witnesses by Judge Theis, pages 171, 172, 173-Appendix 6.
It is a shame to try and sully this or any scientist through outright
purposeful misdirection, misinformation and attempted
discrediting actions. I am surprised at the level of this deception.
My comments and respect for Gofman remain unshaken.
Mr. Barnes, care to respond as to your actions with this previously
requested "citation"? Why would you quote from the
plaintiff's attorney in this fashion--in effect lying about a person and
their credibility? This is where you lose yours.
Sincerely,
Louis Ricciuti,
writer, Niagara Falls
The Bomb That Fell On Niagara "
---------------------------------------
In June, Mr. Riciutti protested the treatment of Dr. John Gofman on Radsafe.
He stated:
"And just WHO are We to be taking pot shots at a career spanning five or six
decades? Show me those references to his discredit--if you please."
In the discussion, he cited several biographical reviews of Dr. Gofman's
expansive career, and indeed these reviews appear to demonstrate Dr. Gofman's
expertise in a number of scientific areas. Nevertheless, Dr. Gofman's work in
radiation science has been controversial and not widely accepted by his
peers. I attempted to respond to his question.
I cited the following quote from American Jurisprudence, Proof of Facts,
(David Gooden, M.S., Ph.D., J.D.). On page 129, Dr. Gooden cites the
following passage regarding Dr. Gofman's expert testimony in the Johnson
case. Unfortunately, I had misread a footnote in Dr. Gooden's book, and
misquoted the citation as Silkwood; it should have been Johnson. I
immediately reposted to RadSafe and reported and corrected the error soon
afterwards (within hours of the original post). I have reconstructed the
original thread below so that the exchange is intact.
As the thread is about 6 months old, I repeat the citation here. I have
corrected the (In Silkwood) of the original posting to (In Johnson) to
correct my citation error, and have corrected the mis-citation:
[From Gooden]
". . . . (T)estimony which differs significantly from recognized national and
international standards should raise considerable suspicion.
One court noted the existence of a small but vocal minority of scientists
whose views are generally not followed by the majority of scientists, but who
have been called as expert witnesses in radiation injury cases. . . .(In
Johnson,) (t)he court went to the extraordinary effort of striking one
witness's testimony entirely and ignoring the second witness's testimony
totally. Regarding these witnesses, the court stated:
[I have deleted the discussion of the other expert witness as it does not
relate to Dr. Gofman - jgb]
. . . In light of all that has been said here, the Court disagrees with the
basis on which Dr. Gofman has made his opinion and will ignore it in its
entirety. Doubtless this will offend the sensitivities of this most
confident witness; notwithstanding that, the Court knows now that no matter
what esteem he claims, he is not a certified health physicist, and while a
physician he does NOT (emphasis in the original) examine or treat patients.
He enjoys emeritus status at the University of California at Berkeley, but
has NO office, nor access to any laboratory or library, and he teaches NO
ONE! From what this Court can garner, it appears that his principal
activities are writing books and testifying in the courtroom. . . .
. . . . Dr. Gofman represent(s) the views of an extreme minority of
scientists. This is not a situation where the scientific community is
equally divided between two respected schools of thought. It is a case where
there is a very small, but yet very vocal group of scientists, including Dr.
Gofman, that hold views which are not considered credible by the experts in
the field."
[cited from Johnston vs. United States. (1984 DC Kan) 597 Supp 374, 410-411
(corrected from Silkwood).]
-----------------------------
----------------------------
The original request was "Show me those references to his discredit--if you
please." I provided one.
My orginal quotation was mis-referenced, which I corrected as soon as I was
aware of it. The quote used in Gooden, appears to have been accurately
reported in the original reference, and I believe I have properly extracted
the details regarding Dr. Gofman from that citation. Other scientists were
mentioned, but I excluded them as the specific request was for references
regarding Dr. Gofman. The mis-citation may have caused some confusion, which
is unfortunate, but I did correct it when I found out about it (see the
original thread below).
Further, I have obtained the original transcript of the Johnson case. The
Judge was J. Kelly, and the opinions were those of the Judge himself. The
quotes cited in my reference are, in fact, in the court record. As I
mentioned, I abbreviated them in order to specifically address the court's
opinions of Dr. Gofman as a radiation scientist and to confine the discussion
to Dr. Gofman (again, JUST as a radiation scientist), but I did not change or
alter the meaning of the court's statement by doing so (see Section VI in
Johnson, "Application of Scientific Knowledge to the Facts of the Case").
But while we're on the subject, Judge Kelly had some more interesting points
to make:
". . . .(T)he opinions of Dr. . . Gofman must be rejected . . . because not
only (has he) never served on any of these extremely relevant committees
(BEIR, ICRP, etc. -- jgb), but also has (not) accepted the consensus reports
of the committees as reliable authorities. It is not the court which has
chosen to separate . . . Dr. Gofman from the vast majority of respected
radiation scientists. (He has) chosen to separate (him)self by rejecting as
reliable authorities the very documents which represent the scientific
consensus in this particular field."
". . .(H)e has become (an) advocate for a cause and (has) therefore departed
from the ranks of objective expert witnesses. . . ."
"Dr. Gofman's demeanor in court shows that he is an open advocate for the
argument that radiation is more harmful than all the world's experts
believe. . . .This Court cannot believe that all of the most eminent
radiation scientists in this country and the entire world are as incompetent
as Dr. Gofman claims, and that only Dr. Gofman has been able to define the
true risks of radiation. This Court finds that Dr. Gofman's dramatic
conflict with all of the world's radiation experts creates a bias in him
which destroys his credibility as an objective expert witness in radiation
cases. His obsession blinds his objectivity! (exclamation point in original)"
I also refer to "Permissible Dose" (J. Samual Walker. University of
California Press. 2000. ISBN 0-520-22328-4. pp. 36 - 44.) which discusses
Dr. Gofman's involvement in a debate of dose limitation regulations conducted
in the Atomic Energy Commission in the late 1960's (pp.36-44). I quote:
"The AEC found Gofman's analysis unpersuasive on a number of grounds. One
was (his) extrapolation from high doses of radiation to estimate the hazards
of low-level exposure. This assumed that small doses delivered over a long
period caused as much somatic damage as an acute dose. Although the evidence
was not definitive, there were strong indications that low doses over an
extended period of time were less harmful than heavy doses in a short time.
In short, the dose rate was an important consideration in estimating
radiation hazards. The AEC also noted that other experts had considered the
same data as Gofman . . . and judged the risks to be much lower. The
Livermore scientist(')s conclusions were not derived from new findings or
original research. The difference lay not in the "hard evidence" (he)
claimed to have but in the interpretation of existing data. The AEC denied
that Gofman . . . had proven that (his) interpretation was more convincing
than that of other radiation experts."
============================================================================
It is clear that Mr. Ricciuti holds Dr. Gofman in some esteem. That is
certainly his perogative, and more power to him.
Nevertheless, the request was to provide some evidence regarding why Dr.
Gofman's work was not held in such esteem by others.
I believe these citations correctly convey why that is so.
Jim Barnes
[These are my personal opinions only.]
========================================================================
========================================================================
[The thread I responded to is provided below]
----- Original Message -----
From: NiagaraNet@AOL.COM
To: radsafe-digest@list.vanderbilt.edu
Cc: NiagaraNet@AOL.COM
Sent: Friday, May 30, 2003 4:07 PM
Subject: Dr.Gofman--I just wonder..
Subj: Dr.Gofman--I just wonder..
Hello All Radsafers:
I rarely post here--but I thought I'd pose a few questions with big question
marks as some food for thought.
Dr. John W. Gofman--I just wonder...
And just HOW LONG has Dr. Gofman been involved with radioactive materials?
Wasn't he a CO-discoverer of one or another of the isotopes of Pu?
Wasn't he one of the original Manhattan Engineering District (Project)
scientists?
Didn't he later go on to discover HDL/LDL?
And just WHO are We to be taking pot shots at a career spanning five or six
decades? Show me those references to his
discredit--if you please.
If you eliminate the "No Level-Low Level" opinion, then there is certainly
limited room for "Hormesis" proclamation now is
there?
Remember, Atoms for Peace?
Sincerely,
L.H. Ricciuti,
Niagara Falls, New York
Email: NiagaraNet@aol.com
--
*Niagara Falls, New York, USA--was the free world's largest Uranium metal
production center for the entire Manhattan A-bomb
Project and beyond.
How many of you HPs knew that one? And yes, I have the citation.
---
The associated comments are my own and do not represent those of the offices
of NASA or any other agency.
__
BELOW - GOFMAN, JOHN W. Vitae\partial
John William Gofman is Professor Emeritus of Molecular and Cell
Biology in the University of California at Berkeley, and Lecturer at the
Department of Medicine, University of California School of Medicine at San
Francisco.
He is the author of several books and more than a hundred scientific
papers in peer-review journals in the fields of nuclear / physical chemistry,
coronary heart disease, ultracentrifugal analysis of the serum lipoproteins,
the relationship of human chromosomes to cancer, and the biological effects
of radiation, with especial reference to causation of cancer and hereditary
injury.
A Narrative Chronology
While a graduate student at Berkeley, Gofman co-discovered
protactinium-232, uranium-232, protactinium-233, and uranium-233, and proved
the slow and fast neutron fissionability of uranium-233. Post-doctorally, he
continued work related to the chemistry of plutonium and the atomic bomb
development. At that early period, less than a quarter of a milligram of
plutonium-239 existed, but a half-milligram was urgently needed for physical
measurements in the Manhattan Project. At the request of J. Robert
Oppenheimer, Gofman and Robert Connick irradiated a ton of uranyl nitrate by
placing it around the Berkeley cyclotron (to capture neutrons), for a total
exposure period of six weeks, with operation night and day. In 110 Gilman
Hall, they scaled up Gofman's previous test-tube-sized sodium uranyl acetate
process for the plutonium's chemical extraction. Dissolving 10-pound batches
of the "hot" ton in big Pyrex jars, and working around the clock with the
help of eight or ten others, they reduced the ton to a half cc of liquid
containing 1.2 milligrams of plutonium (twice as much as expected). After
the plutonium work, Gofman completed medical school. In 1947, he began his
research on coronary heart disease and, by developing special flotation
ultracentrifugal techniques, he and his colleagues demonstrated the existence
of diverse low-density lipoproteins (LDL) and high-density lipoproteins
(HDL). Their work on lipoprotein chemistry and health consequences included
the first prospective studies demonstrating that high LDL levels represent a
risk-factor for coronary heart disease and that low HDL levels represent a
risk-factor for coronary heart disease. His principal book on the heart
disease research is Coronary Heart Disease (1959, Charles C. Thomas,
Publisher).
----
*Ironically or not, Niagara County, Niagara Falls, New York, has the highest
heart disease rate in the nation. There is over one million pounds of U
buried there from past MED/AEC activities. Other, additional unadressed
burials remain. Go figure. Dr. Gofman links long term low level exposures to
heart disease. Again, go figure.
Folks,
Show me those references to his discredit--if you please.
==============================================================================
=====
[My response (Silkwood quoted in error):]
I cite the following in regards to Dr. Gofman's various positions as they
relate specifically to his positions on radiation effects.
This is from the Silkwood trials as cited in "American Jurisprudence: Proof
of Facts," (1991). p. 129:
". . . . (T)estimony which differs significantly from recognized national and
international standards should raise considerable suspicion.
One court noted the existence of a small but vocal minority of scientists
whose views are generally not followed by the majority of scientists, but who
have been called as expert witnesses in radiation injury cases. . . .(In
Silkwood,) (t)he court went to the extraordinary effort of striking one
witness's testimony entirely and ignoring the second witness's testimony
totally. Regarding these witnesses, the court stated:
[I have deleted the discussion of the other expert witness as it does not
relate to Dr. Gofman - jgb]
. . . In light of all that has been said here, the Court disagrees with the
basis on which Dr. Gofman has made his opinion and will ignore it in its
entirety. Doubtless this will offend the sensitivities of this most
confident witness; notwithstanding that, the Court knows now that no matter
what esteem he claims, he is not a certified health physicist, and while a
physician he does NOT (emphasis in the original) examine or treat patients.
He enjoys emeritus status at the University of California at Berkeley, but
has NO office, nor access to any laboratory or library, and he teaches NO
ONE! From what this Court can garner, it appears that his principal
activities are writing books and testifying in the courtroom. . . .
. . . . Dr. Gofman represent(s) the views of an extreme minority of
scientists. This is not a situation where the scientific community is
equally divided between two respected schools of thought. It is a case where
there is a very small, but yet very vocal group of scientists, including Dr.
Gofman, that hold views which are not considered credible by the experts in
the field."
[cited from Silkwood v Kerr-McGee Corp. (1979, WD Okla) 485 F Supp 566, 5 Fed
Rules Evid Serv 765, 10 ELR 20708]
Jim Barnes
===========================================================================
[My correction: posted on 1 June 2003; 20:23:58. My recollection is that it
was posted within several hours of the original posting]
I appear to have miscited the legal reference in my earlier post on Gofman.
It should be:
Johnston v. United States (1984, DC Kan) 597 F Supp 374.
The quotes are still valid; just the citation to Silkwood was incorrect.
Jim Barnes
************************************************************************
You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To
unsubscribe, send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu Put the
text "unsubscribe radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail,
with no subject line. You can view the Radsafe archives at
http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/