Implicit Assumptions in the Cassini and Other Threads -Reply

[Charles Willis <CAW@nrc.gov>]

Gerald,

Certainly Gofman has the credentials, and in his greatest triumph (getting the NRC
to impose the "Appendix I" requirements on nuclear power plants) it was clear to
me that he fully understood the technical fallacy of his arguement, as well as its
public relations strength.  The BEIR committee did go to the trouble of refuting his
position on biological effects.

Sternglass and Gould are another kettle of fish.  Their positions are so egregious
that no knowledgable scientist will waste much time on them.

Petkau did show increasing membrane damage with decreasing dose, but certainly
not at the low dose rate associated with environmental exposures.  So far as I
know, Dr. Petkau's work has stood the test of time.  The misuses others have
made of his work, however, have been rejected.

I, and others, have responded to Morgan's pittiful testimony to the extent that he
has been rejected completely.

It is hard to find reputable references to refute these positions because few
journals are interested in publishing such things.  Remember the JAMA rejections
of responses to Steve Wing's report on the workers at Oak Ridge?  I could send a
copy of my review of  the Gould and Goldman (not Marvin) book but it is only in a
Chapter newsletter.

We can only guess at these people's motives and I do not consider it worth the
effort.

Charlie Willis
caw@nrc.gov