Re: Newspaper article on Plutonium

[George Hofferber <ghofferb@scientech.com>]

Brian

When you quote numbers such as you have quoted below, you should provide the source of that information.   One problem Health Physicist have in communicating with the public (and each other) is that misinformation gets mixed in with the valid information, and no one can tell the difference.  The general public does not believe many of the claims they have heard about the safety of nuclear power, in part, because they can never believe the statistics quoted to them by "credible" personnel.

Without quoting the source of this negative information you have provided, I, and any other Health Physicist that would like to verify this negative data before repeating it, can not see the study format, guidance, implementation strategy, and results used to develop these numbers.   You have simply put negative numbers out for some one to repeat them over and over again quoting you and making the numbers seem to be credible.   The more they are repeated, the more credible they will seem.    You also seem to be tying the numbers to the release of radioactive materials from bombs, power generation, fallout, space probes, etc., since that is the subject that raised this issue to begin with.

Since I have only your word that these numbers are valid, I choose to look at your qualifications, vs Bernard L. Cohen's qualifications.  Bernie has been active as a Certified HP since 1976, and has been very active (understatement) in the HPS.  He is currently on the Publications committee.    You have been Certified since 1995 in the Power Reactor Speciality.

Unless you can provide a source for your numbers and I find that source to be credible, I will not repeat your numbers.  

When we, as Health Physicists, make quotes and claims, they need to be correct and verifyable.    To often an individual with only a little bit of knowledge will put out slightly wrong data or misleading information that does nothing but cloud the picture.  When that misleading information comes from within the ranks of the Health Physics Professional community (I am not getting into the professional argument here!!!) we are just shooting ourselves in the foot.

Brian,  you are not the only one on radsafe to put out information for which you may or may not be qualified to diseminate.  Just look at the number of people that respond to some very specific questions on the net with "I think" or "in my opinion", when nothing in their available information would lead you to believe they have strong qualifications in that specific arena.   Unfortunately much of the information quoted in this manner deals with public knowledge issues.


We, as Health Physics Professionals have to find a way to provide valid information to the public on risk, such that the public can decide for itself what the best options are.   We will have to overcome the emotional and outrageous claims of the anti groups with reason and facts.  If that is possible!!!!




At 11:31 AM 9/16/97 -0500, you wrote:
>Based on the Canadian statistics you are wrong.  Between 1969 and 1997 
>(estimated), excluding non-melanoma skin cancer and lung cancer there has been 
>a 45% increase in cancer incidence for males and an 11% increase for females, 
>age adjusted.
>
>
>
>
>
>blc/ @ pitt.edu (Bernard L Cohen) 
>97/09/16 09:44
>
>To: radsafe @ romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu (Multiple recipients of list) @ INET
>cc:  (bcc: Brian Gaulke)
>Subject: Re: Newspaper article on Plutonium
>
>
>On Tue, 16 Sep 1997, John Goldsmith wrote:
>
>> The incidence of testicular cancer and of leukemia and malignant nmelanoma
>> have been increasing as has prostate cancer.  Although smoking is the
>> principal cause of lung cancer, it is not the only relevant exposure;
>> asbestos, arsenic, radiation, and coke oven emissions are among other
>> recognized exposures.      John Goldsmith, M.D., M.P.H.
>
>> 
>> On Mon, 15 Sep 1997, Bernard L Cohen wrote:
>
>> >  There has *NOT* been an increase in age-adjusted cancer rates with
>> > the exception of lung cancer which, it is universally agreed, was due to
>> > increased smoking. I believe ACSH has a booklet on this subject.
>
> --What I meant to say was that if you discount lung cancer, there
>has not been an increase in age-adjusted total cancers.
>
>
>
>
>
George Hofferber		Scientech, Inc. Web Page				
ghofferber@scientech.com	http://www.scientech.com
910 Clopper Road		
Gaithersburg, MD  20878	Radiological Data Management System Web Page
Office - (301)258-2428	http://www.scientech.com/instr/infoworks.html
Pager - 888-760-4843