WITH FRIENDS LIKE THESE. . .

First the facts: every one of Goldman's claims is incorrect.

The figures I used were those of the Brookhaven Natl. Lab. (BNL) 1978 report (based on computerized correlations for every square kilometer of the US and to this day unsurpassed in extent and precision). Though they were published in 1978, they antici-pated the state of 1985 (not 1975) by assuming retirement of older plants and more modern ones with better pollution control coming on line. Moreover, as new coal- fired construction was canceled, and older plants were (and are) kept in service beyond their retirement age, the predicted mortality figures can be ex-pected to be higher, not lower, than anticipated in the report.

More than 200 people (204, to be exact) were hospitalized at Chernobyl; the number of dead, including the fire fighters (some of whom went by helicopter directly into the plume) and the vic-tims of causes other than radiation, was 31. Hence the lives saved from coal in 27 months of operation by the Brookhaven figures (which assume US standards of pollution control rather than Soviet control, which is shoddy to nonexistent) amount to 170, which is 5.45 times greater than the Chernobyl death toll. Inter-estingly enough, the WSJ published a second letter by Goldman (1/26) where he noted his error: "Upon reading my letter to the editor [!], I realized that the number of Chernobyl deaths was in-correct... My conclusion that Chernobyl wouldn't have been safer than an equivalent coal-fired plant still remains valid..."

[Can you believe that? "I now realize the man devoured three 12 oz. steaks for breakfast every day. My conclusion that he is a vegetarian still remains valid. . . "]

His assertion about the several thousand long-term fatalities is the most exasperating. Neglect the fact that they can never be con-firmed because the number is too small among the more than 130 million Europeans who will die of cancer independently of Cher-nobyl (cancer rate of 20% among the present European popula-tion of more than 650 million). Neglect the fact that if one could discern this minuscule fraction, it would probably demonstrate some prolonged lives due to radiation hormesis. But does Mr Goldman believe that coal has no long-term fatalities associated with it? Its chemical carcinogens and mutagens do not lend them-selves to as simple predictions as does radiation, but unlike the hypothetical and undetectable long-term deaths from Chernobyl, the long-term deaths from coal, especially in the Soviet Empire, are measurable by the county coroners. Soviet figures are hard to come by, but in Czechoslovakia, where public health standards are far above those of the USSR, the male life expectancy near coal (lignite) fired power plants is down by five years from the national average. How does that compare with a death toll so small that it can never be confirmed?

A letter summarizing the above appeared in the WSJ on 02/11/88 .