home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!think.com!spool.mu.edu!agate!naughty-peahen
- From: Jym Dyer <jym@mica.berkeley.edu>
- Newsgroups: talk.environment
- Subject: Re: . . . Dr. John Gofman . . .
- Date: 9 Jan 1993 06:32:13 GMT
- Organization: The Naughty Peahen Party Line
- Lines: 28
- Message-ID: <Jym.8Jan1993.2232@naughty-peahen>
- References: <1992Dec23.211254.7661@odin.corp.sgi.com>
- <JMC.92Dec23185253@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
- NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
-
- > Gofman has been an anti-nuke for a very long time.
-
- =-= It should be noted that he wasn't always so. Gofman has
- both a doctorate in nuclear/physical chemistry as well as a
- medical degree. He had a long and distinguished career in
- the industry. His current anti-nuclear position derives itself
- from his experiences in that industry.
-
- =-= This is, I believe, a bit more significant than his having
- "been an anti-nuke for a very long time."
-
- > I believe his epidemiological studies are not accepted by
- > the health physics community.
-
- =-= "The health physics community" is no monolith. His studies
- are neither universally accepted nor rejected. They were
- certainly rejected by the AEC, though the AEC (an organization
- devoted to promoting as well as regulating nuclear energy) has
- hardly distinguished itself as a fair or honest appraiser of
- such studies.
-
- =-= Gofman's linear assessment models make sense to me, and
- I've seen no evidence demonstrating that other models are more
- appropriate. Gofman's calculations of deaths from genetic
- damage are something I'm not qualified to appraise, but I've
- not seen the purveyors of the other models even acknowledging
- such a thing.
- <_Jym_>
-