Re: My comments and citations reagarding Dr. Gofman

[Steven Dapra <sjd@swcp.com>]

Dec. 18



	First I would like to compliment Jim Barnes for his superb reply to Lou

Ricciuti, and for acknowledging his error and correcting it (again).  Jim's

posting was an exemplar of honesty and scholarship.



	Now I would like to address myself to Lou Ricciuti, who wrote:



	"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?  [low-density lipoproteins and high-density lipoproteins]



	"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."





REPLY and COMMENTS:



	The fact that Gofman's career spans 50 or 60 years proves nothing.  What

matters are Gofman's credentials and whether or not his views concur with

the universally accepted facts and knowledge about radioactivity.  As Jim

Barnes has very ably pointed out, Gofman's claims are accepted by no one

who is working professionally in the field of health physics.  (Gofman's

discovery of HDL/LDL is commendable, but it has nothing to do with Gofman's

qualifications in the field of health physics.  Simply put, this is a red

herring.)



	I would invite Lou Ricciuti to obtain a copy of "The War Against the Atom"

(McCracken 1982) and read all its references to Gofman, and in particular

read the specific analysis of Gofman (pp. 135-145).  McCracken destroys

Gofman and shows conclusively that his claims about radioactivity have no

merit.  If Lou Ricciuti wants references to discredit Gofman he can all he

needs in McCracken.



	Let me quote from the foreword to "Poisoned Power"  (p. xviii) (Gofman and

Tamplin 1979).



	"Our [in italics] purpose is the objective analysis of the facts at our

disposal.  Small wonder there is disagreement!  With our degrees,

experience, credentials, and proven abilities, we could each be earning

$1,000 per day as consultants for [in italics] the nuclear power industry,

if only we were willing to confuse the public, muddy the logic, ignore

enough evidence, and say that nuclear power plants make 'good neighbors.'

But we won't take the industry's blood money.  You decide whose credibility

is higher, when experts disagree."  



	Of this, McCracken (p. 144-145) says:



	"This, then, is the way John Gofman solves a dispute as to scientific

fact.  Not by a careful attempt to meet objections by arraying evidence and

argumentation against them but by the arrogant dismissal of everyone who

has the temerity to disagree with him.  He simply proclaims ex cathedra

that all those who differ with the Gofman-Tamplin estimates are wrong."



	Jim Barnes noted that it is Mr. Ricciuti's prerogative to hold Dr. Gofman

in some esteem.  To be sure, that is his prerogative, however the weight of

evidence shows decisively that there is no reason to hold Dr. Gofman in any

esteem on the basis of his views concerning the human health effects of

radioactivity.



Steven Dapra

sjd@swcp.com



REFERENCES



	Gofman, John and Tamplin, Arthur.  Poisoned Power.  Emmaus (PA): Rodale

Press; 1979.



	McCracken, Samuel.  The War Against the Atom.  New York: Basic Books; 1982.







************************************************************************

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/