Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!caip!princeton!allegra!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes
From: carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes)
Newsgroups: net.sci,net.politics
Subject: Re: Nuclear power: Bernard Cohen, nuclear expert
Message-ID: <534@gargoyle.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 19-Jul-86 21:17:37 EDT
Article-I.D.: gargoyle.534
Posted: Sat Jul 19 21:17:37 1986
Date-Received: Mon, 21-Jul-86 04:20:48 EDT
Reply-To: carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes)
Organization: U. of Chicago, Computer Science Dept.
Lines: 70
Xref: watmath net.sci:1309 net.politics:17507

>Once again, please refer to "The Toxicity of Plutonium" and
>"High-Level Radioactive Waste from Light-Water Reactors", both by
>Bernard L. Cohen.  They have various scenarios concerning purposeful
>dispersal of both plutonium and radioactive wastes via various
>dispersion methods, air, water, etc.  The results indicate that the
>threat is not that much more than from other common terrorist
>materials.

Continuing our survey of the scientific output of Bernard Cohen:

The February 1979 *Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists* carried a
critique by Professor Cohen of two articles which had appeared in a
previous issue, one by Karl Z. Morgan on "Cancer and low level
ionizing radiation" and one by J. Rotblat on "The risks for radiation
workers" (Sept. 1978 *Bulletin*).  Morgan is a professor in the
School of Nuclear Engineering at Georgia Tech, a founder of the
science of health physics, and was for about 30 years the director of
the Health Physics Division of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory.  He
has been chairman of the International Commission on Radiological
Protection and the National Council on Radiation Protection.  Here
are excerpts from Morgan's response to Cohen's comments on his
article:

  Bernard L. Cohen's comment is replete with errors and
  misrepresentation of fact.  [Long discussion follows.] ...
  
  Finally, Cohen has marked me as one of "those dedicated to the
  destruction of nuclear energy."  With this I do not agree.  For the
  past 35 years I, as a health physicist, have devoted most of my
  professional life to the study of risks from exposure to ionizing
  radiation and of ways in which this risk can be made acceptably small
  in comparison to the expected benefits.  I believe it is those Don
  Quixotes who choose every opportunity to underestimate the radiation
  risk and to discredit those who carry out epidemiology studies of
  populations exposed to radiation risks who are the strongest
  supporters of the anti-nuke movements....

Joseph Rotblat is emeritus professor of physics at the University of
London, past president of the British Institute of Radiology and the
British Hospital Physicists' Association, and was for many years the
editor-in-chief of *Physics in Medicine and Biology*.  Excerpts from
his response to Cohen:

  My impression at reading Bernard L. Cohen's criticism of my article
  ... is that he did not bother to read my article carefully before
  putting pen to paper.  Many of the points he raised are either
  answered in my article or are irrelevant....

  ...Cohen's last point [is] that the cost of saving the lives of a few
  radiation workers is unjustified since it is so much higher than the
  cost of reducing other hazards.  I think this shows his lack of
  understanding of the way society works.  Society does not attach the
  same price tag to every activity.  Often enormous sums are spent to
  combat a rare disease, while more prevalent diseases are neglected.
  I believe that this emphasizes the instinctive abhorrence of society
  to express the value of human life in terms of dollars or pounds
  sterling.  Every human life is invaluable, and the fact that certain
  hazards, like crossing the street or smoking cigarettes, claim
  numerous lives is no justification for allowing another hazard to
  continue, if something can be done about it, even if it would result
  in a much smaller number of victims.  All this brings to mind Oscar
  Wilde's definition of a cynic:  "A man who knows the price of
  everything and the value of nothing."

The point of this exercise is not to prove that Cohen is wrong but to
show that many of Cohen's claims are, to put it politely,
controversial among his physicist colleagues and other scientists who
are knowledgeable in the topics he discusses.

Richard Carnes