Science, the weekly of the AAA[dvancement]S, brings serious, scientific papers
¾preceded by censored news reports and features written by the Science scribblers.1) On June 5, Science had a full-page, specially boxed piece under a ¾" headline JAPANESE AGITATED BY NUCLEAR PLANT SPILL. At the Tsuruga nuclear plant, a storage tank had been ineptly handled and had released some cobalt-60 and manganese-54 into the sea; subsequent measurement of seaweed from the bay showed it contained 0.33 picocuries/100g, thus presenting a possible health hazard to those members of the public who consume more than three tons of seaweed per month.
But, charges the article, the utility covered up the incident. If by it was inexcusable; but did they? All we have is the word of the colleagues of Constance Holden, Eliot Marshall, Norman Colins, Robert Gillette, and Anthony Parisi; a crowd so unreliable that you cannot even bank on their information always being false.
2) Meanwhile, Science scribbler Eliot Marshall filled three pages under a National-Examiner-sized headline NEW A-BOMB STUDIES ALTER RADIATION ESTIMATES, referring to LLL scientist Dr William Loewe's possible reappraisal of some Hiroshima data, which are used to interpret effects of radiation so small that they can only be detected by sophisticated statistical analysis. Such effects, write the Science scribblers with their customary scientific precision, "may be larger than hitherto thought," which is just as well, for Marshall is unable to keep the dimensions of units such as millirems straight (how many pounds in a mile?). One might, for the umpteenth time, make the point of consistency ("If so, the same must be true of living in Colorado, or in energy-efficient homes, or eating 'TMI' salad dressing?), but fortunately the scribbling has been refuted by Dr Loewe himself (Science, 3 Jul 81; AIF Info June 81). Marshall had noted that the neutron radiation was smaller than calculated earlier, but had overlooked that the re-evaluation of the gamma radiation more than made up for it. Though this, if confirmed, will make little difference to present assumptions, the result is precisely the opposite of what Science had reported: The presently assumed hazards err, if they err at all, on the exaggerated side.
3) While Science censors any news by SE2 and its Nobel Prize winning scientists, Science scribbler Norman Cohn authored a full-page, special-box review of "economist" Komanoff's anti-nuclear harangue [AtE Jun 81]. It was answered by Dr A. David Rossin, a genuine scientist who is director of research at Chicago's Commonwealth Edison (40% nuclear, 60% coal, with no reason to push one or the other). Rossin submitted a rebuttal, pleading with Science's editor for about as much space as Colin's "Review" (largely parroting Komanoff's self-praise and ignoring, perhaps willfully, the previous rebuttals that Science had at its disposal). His plea
|
|
Vol. 9, No. 1
Newsletter: Access to Energy Newsletter Archive Volume: Issues Issue/No.: Vol. 9, No. 1 Date: November 23, 2004 12:39 PM Title: Energy Policy
Copyright © 2004 - Access to Energy Newsletter Archive
|