Shooting ANS's "Nuclear News" P2

I mentioned yesterday in P1 that I would post pertinent parts of my email to the Nuclear News' Editor/Publisher.

Viola:

"You stated in your editorial that the NN is a news magazine and ANS session organizers have no constraints on how they organize their sessions.

I agree with you.

My criticism of the NN was within my overall criticism of the ANS, which I've discussed earlier. According to ANS's Bylaws and Fundamental Principle, ANS's first objective is to promote the understanding of science related to the atomic nucleus and of allied sciences (which has traditionally included the science of health physics) and to do so honestly and impartially.

The ANS doesn't seem to have any mechanisms to constrain itself to its stated values.

The September article actually does include opinions by its authors.

Two older NN articles were mentioned within the article by the authors (p.47). They are introduced as the "most recent scientific developments". Those articles covered two studies on radiation health effects which appear to repudiate LNT. The authors seem to have cherry-picked those studies in order to advance the sessions' organizers' message that current radiation risk estimates are too high. Those studies were not the most recent scientific developments, though they may have been the most recent ones which would support the session's agenda.

It was also opined (p.50), "All of the panelists, in one way or another, could be properly termed debunkers of the received wisdom on radiation exposure....". "Received wisdom" is the language of ridicule, hardly the language of non-critical reporting. And please realize the panelists didn't actually debunk anything. Nothing has changed in the health physics community as a result of those sessions.

Looking back over the year, the pattern has been unsettling:

1. Multiple sessions at an ANS meeting intended to disseminate propaganda that current radiation risk estimates are too high.

2. Review of two radiation health studies by NN which seem to imply that current radiation risk estimates may be too high.

3. An absence of any sessions or NN articles which support (let alone promote the understanding of) the current radiation risk estimates or which seem to imply those estimates may be too low.

Moving on to the second key point in your editorial, I agree with you again. It's a fact that a small print disclaimer exists on page 3 of every NN issue. So what we have is a heavily biased special session which was organized at an annual ANS meeting, co-chaired by an outgoing ANS President, disseminated by the ANS's NN, further disseminated by the Internet-based ANS Cafe, and remains a listed topic under "What's New" on the ANS website.

But it may not reflect the opinions of the ANS."