Re: Help! Sternglass and Gofman References

["John Moulder" <jmoulder@post.its.mcw.edu>]

> I do not believe you will find peer-reviewed articles addressing 
> the Gofman & Sternglass contentions.  There are responses to these 
> junk science pieces by Mancuso, Steve Wing, Jay Gould, etc., but they 
> are seldom peer-reviewed.

Agreed, I don't think you are going to find anything peer-reviewed.

> For me,  the best approach seems to be to go to the documents 
> reporting what is, rather than those saying what is wrong with 
> these irresponsible reports.

Academically, this is a good approach, but in a court of law it gets you into 
an "our expert vs their expert" position.  My experience (I've dealt with 
Sternglass directly several times, but not with Gofman) is that you have to 
tackle the junk science head on by showing that it is junk.  In other words, 
you need to show that Sternglass and Gofman are not credible experts ,and 
hence that their work cannot be relied on in a court of law.

The problem with dealing with Sternglass, etc, is that they take actual 
information and use it (analyze it) out of context.  The best strategy I have 
found to deal with this requires that you know the data well enough to show 
the true context.


John Moulder (jmoulder@its.mcw.edu)
Radiation Biology Group
Medical College of Wisconsin