Letter Exchange

I won't publish the whole sordid story here, but the essence is that after nuclear-apologist and paid consultant, Patrick Moore, came to NB to spread some questionable advice/propaganda about nuclear power, I wrote a letter to the editor. I basically pointed out that Patrick Moore lacks credibility. At one point I said he does little to reconcile his figure of 60 dead with stats suggesting that the numbers may be in the hundreds of thousands. This was published in all of the 3 major Irving papers and the Irving-owned Kings County Record.

A Dr. Lowe (physicist from Etobicoke, ON) sent a reply to my letter which was published on Feb 19 in the Kings County Record. He (and the letter's headline) claimed Moore was right and Moir was wrong. Given this letter could almost be considered libelous - he's attacking my research credibility - I sent in a reply. We'll see if they publish it, but I include it below, because it has some links to data (sources that are pointed to) that discredit the argument that only 60 people died.

Moir replies (Published in the Kings County Record on February 26)

On Feb. 19, the Kings County Record presented a reply to a letter I wrote questioning one of the controversial statistics presented by pro-nuclear activist, Patrick Moore - that just 60 people died in the Chernobyl accident. At the risk of prolonging the debate, I felt it important that I should be allowed to reply as my credibility as a researcher has been brought to question.

As Dr. Lowe points out, the initial UN report claimed around 60 deaths. However, a 2005 report by the International Atomic Energy Association and the World Health Organization, both of which are UN organizations, increased that number officially to 4,000, and suggested there might be an additional 5,000 estimated deaths. Moreover, as reported in the April 2006 New Scientist, “Zhanat Carr, a radiation scientist with the WHO in Geneva, says the 5,000 deaths were omitted [from the 2005 report] because the report was a ‘political communications tool’.” In 2006, the WHO officially reported that there may be “up to 9,000 excess cancer deaths due to Chernobyl.”

Various groups criticize even this number of 9,000 because the WHO report only considered “Belarus, the Russian Federation and Ukraine.” Indeed, significant parts of Europe also suffered from fallout.

Perhaps more convincing is the work of Dr. Richard L. Garwin, Philip D. Reed Senior Fellow for Science and Technology and IBM Fellow Emeritus, who has published more than 500 papers and been granted 45 U.S. patents. He has been involved in the design of nuclear weapons and is a reasoned proponent of the expansion of nuclear power. He certainly cannot be accused of being anti-nuclear power.

In the Letters section of Physics and Society (Jan. 1999) he explains that “even for low-level radiation, deaths due to cancer occur at a rate of … 400 per million person-rem” and with relatively unanimous agreement of an exposure of 600,000 persons, this amounts to early cancer deaths of about 24,000. He repeated this calculation in a speech to the Nuclear Control Institute, Washington DC in 2001.

It is also true that Greenpeace and scientists within Russia place the death toll due to early cancer and other illnesses between 100,000 and 500,000.

In my initial letter, I pointed out that it is difficult to ‘reconcile’ the claims of Patrick Moore with other research. I did not claim that other research is in fact correct as it is very difficult to tabulate death tolls in this situation. However, I still stand by my claim that Patrick Moore’s figure of 60 deaths (as stated in 2008) is difficult to reconcile with other evidence.

I absolutely disagree with Dr. Lowe’s assertion that “Dr. Moore is correct.” Even he claims to accept that there may be an additional 9,000 early cancer deaths. Under the new math, 9,000 is still significantly greater than 60. Indeed, given he is on the pro-nuclear side, one would reasonably have to accept Dr. Garwin’s calculation of 24,000 early cancer deaths as at least a minimum.

I may be an economist, but I am fundamentally a researcher. The data both cited and presented here was found and read in perhaps an hour and a half.

Finally, if I may be so bold, have people thought to question why a scientist in Etobicoke, ON finds it necessary to reply to a letter in the Kings County Record, published in Sussex, NB? While I welcome his attempt at criticism, I find it strange that “experts from away” need to come to New Brunswick’s aid.