CENSORSHIP BY THE PRESS

Is my charge of "heavily censored," as in the first story above, exaggerated? Consider the following case. Our old acquaintance, Carl Johnson, M.D., activist antinuke and professional witness in antinuclear trials for fat damages, has applied for the job of head of the Department of Health of Boulder County, Colorado. In a special box, the above-mentioned Daily Camera brought an appeal by a former council woman praising his "heroic job of exposing the truth about the contamination and cancer-causing effects of the Rocky Flats Nuclear Weapons facility" when he headed the health department of a neighboring county. [In reality, he did such a laughable job of it that even a Carterite EPA had to rebuke him.]

What the upright champions of press freedom at the Camera did not give a box, in fact what its "investigative" journalists have been strictly censoring since last November, are pp. 103-107 of Judge Kelly's verdict in Johnson vs. US, US District Court, Kansas, 11/15/84 [AtE Feb 85]. There is not enough space to reproduce all of the 6 pages here (though I have sent a copy to Boulder County Health Board), but here are a few excerpts:

"Dr Carl Johnson did not, in fact, even attempt to measure radon gas ..., in direct contradiction to his affidavit... This Court must find Dr. Johnson's refusal to measure radon gas incompetence at best and deception at worst...

"Although Dr Johnson did not appear in this courtroom to defend his actions, he was perfectly willing to give opinions ... that causation existed if someone received a yearly dose of 450 mrem. The Court finds such a position absurd, since the national and international experts have agreed that safety standards can be set at [5,000 mrem/yr occupational and 500 mrem/yr for the general public]. Plaintiffs have failed to show why this Court should believe that Dr Johnson is right and all of the eminent world experts are wrong.

"On the question of latency periods, Dr Johnson testified that radiation-induced leukemia had a 6-month latency period prior to diagnosis. Once again this shows that Dr Johnson has distanced himself from scientific consensus. BEIR III [National Academy of Sciences document on radiation hazards, AtE Mar 81] tells us that leukemia has a minimal latency period of two to three years ..."

There is also a sizable fist of reasons why "Dr Johnson's opinions are of no value," including "he is not teaching any related subjects; he never had an office medical practice," and "he failed to attempt to measure what Dr Morgan claims caused 97.6 to 99.9% of the dose to the plaintiffs."

None of this is of interest to the county that threatens to be afflicted by Johnson's appointment, decided the dedicated opponents of press censorship. Heil das Firste Amendment!