Date: Mon, 08 Jul 2002 04:10:59 -0500
From: "Kevin Sanchez" <heliogabalus-AT-eudoramail.com>
Subject: Re: Dr. Helen Caldicott 


dr. helen caldicott is not a demagogue or a left-wing nut, and i think her background in medical science, as opposed to physics, speaks for her credibility as well as her capacity to read the evidence in a humane way. i don't know anything about michael baker, but what he says in that response to her editorial is that plutonium exposure doesn't harm people. uhhhh, mmmmm, well, first, let me say that we don't know the first thing about cancer. there's been obvious correlations between cancer rates and radiation, in japan or iraq, for instance. but as for what may or may not cause cancer in a small group of people, i agree, that's up in the air: we can only speak in general and statistical ways on the subject because individuals will always pose a lot of exceptions. and generally speaking, i think we can say the manufacture of plutonium is a public health risk no matter how tight security is, for as baker himself admits, accidental exposure has occurred. anti-american terrorism poses an even greater risk because in the end one must trust certain people to keep harmful radiation away from folks, and i bet ya that nuclear plants can probably be infiltrated or attacked in certain ways which would led to mass exposure. what caldicott is arguing, from a doctor's perspective, is that radioactive materials like this are a pandora's box - shit happens and once you invent these substances theres a greater risk that cancer rates may go up or that unintended things may occur. i also would wager that michael baker makes his money from the nuclear industry, which makes his 'scientific claims' (i.e. exposure to plutonium isn't that bad) more than a little self-interested - (he's writing from the fucking place they made the atom bomb in, for goodness' sakes). whereas caldicott has done nothing but work her ass off to raise people's consciousness only to have idiots like eric call her a quack for her effort. 

needless to say, whatever might be said of noam chomsky's advancements in linguistics (and his brillant critique of behaviorism), his foreign policy analysis often leaves much to be desired, though mostly he just quotes available sources. but lastly, george will isn't a right-wing demagogue either - i always find his commentary incredibly insightful, as opposed to eric's run-in-the-mill ultranationalistic pigshit.    :kev


> Quoting Caldicott is like quoting Noam Chomsky or quoting George Will or any >other left- or right-wing demagogue -- one knows exactly what they will say, >regardless of the issue, unperturbed by the facts. 
>
>Below is a nuclear physicist responding to some of the baby doctor / 
>activist's charges in her recent LA Times op-ed piece:
>
>Helen Caldicott's recent Op-Ed in your newspaper is a fine example of >sensationalistic journalism unsupported by the scientific facts. When reading >Ms. Caldicott's writings one must keep in mind that she is not a radiation >scientist who has spent countless hours studying the effects of radiation on >man, but someone who has made a name for herself by making unsubstantiated >exaggerated claims regarding nuclear power.
>
>She claims to be concerned about public health but the clean use of nuclear >energy could prevent the thousands of deaths caused by the burning of fossil >fuels every year in this country alone. She claims the release of Cesium, >Plutonium,and Strontium, will cause thousands if not billions of painful >deaths, but doesn't explain how these elements would be released. Yes, they >are contained in nuclear fuel, but that is where they remain throughout the >lifetime of the reactor and that is where the remain when the spent fuel is >disposed of as waste. Even if they were released would they cause the health 
>effects she claims?  NO!  All of these elements have been released in >substantial quatities to the atmosphere by nuclear weapons testing. Matter of >fact, orders of magnitude more than one pound of plutonium has been released >but yet we are not all dying of cancer as she claims would happen.During the >early years of the nuclear weapons programs many workers were exposed to >plutonium and had measurable amounts in their bodies.  They are living longer 
>than comparable people unexposed to plutonium. I hope the Los Angeles Times >can make better use of their editorial page in the future to educate people >rather than try to scare them with unsupported nonsense.
>
>Michael C. Baker, Ph.D.
>Los Alamos, NM


Join 18 million Eudora users by signing up for a free Eudora Web-Mail account at http://www.eudoramail.com


	--- from list nietzsche-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---