[Marxism] Fukushima’s Children are Dying » CounterPunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names

David P Á david at miradoiro.com
Wed Jun 18 14:06:02 MDT 2014


On 18/06/2014 21:48, Shane Mage via Marxism wrote:
> The study was originally published in 2009.  Now, more than four years
> later, DW is unable (he would if he could, wouldn't he?) to cite a
> single criticism (let alone refutation) of any of its facts or
> conclusions. Yet he cites the absence of either endorsement or
> refutation by the NYAS as justification for slandering it as "junk" and
> slandering Harvey Wasserman as not merely "rabid" but "most rabid!"

I think I made a mistake with my mail client, and my reply on this issue
when to LP's private email instead of to the list. I will reproduce it
below, linking to two studies doing exactly that:

On 18/06/2014 17:17, Louis Proyect wrote:
> The article making such a claim was from the New York Academy of
> Sciences's website. Here's info on them from "about us" page:

I'm not sure if you're familiar with this particular case. In the event
you're not, this is what the academy has to say about it:

This collection of papers, originally published in Russian, was written
by scientists who state that they have summarized the information about
the health and environmental consequences of the Chernobyl disaster from
several hundreds of papers previously published in Slavic language
publications. In no sense did Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences
or the New York Academy of Sciences commission this work; nor by its
publication does the Academy validate the claims made in the original
Slavic language publications cited in the translated papers.
Importantly, the translated volume has not been formally peer‐reviewed
by the New York Academy of Sciences or by anyone else.

Under the editorial practices of Annals at the time, some projects, such
as the Chernobyl translation, were developed and accepted solely to
fulfill the Academy’s broad mandate of providing an open forum for
discussion of scientific questions, rather than to present original
scientific studies or Academy positions. The content of these projects,
conceived as one-off book projects, were not vetted by standard peer review.

Additionally, the academy recommends papers like
http://iopscience.iop.org/0952-4746/32/2/181/pdf/0952-4746_32_2_181.pdf
or http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00411-010-0313-1

I understand if you don't follow nuclear issues closely this may be new
to you, but it made a big splash when it was published, and,
effectively, repudiated by the NYAS, which name had been
instrumentalised to purvey very dubious science (or if you ask me
complete utter rubbish).

--David.



More information about the Marxism mailing list