Cisco published a copy of the letter s/he sent to the MIT Univ President about biased MIT research. I asked if I could re-post the letter. Permission was granted:
Cisco wrote at Enenews:
June 7, 2012
Susan Hockfield, PhD, President
Massachessets Institute of Technology
Massachessets Institute of Technology
Dear Dr. Hockfield:
Good Day! I was very disappointed
and shocked to read and hear about a recently published study, funded by DOE,
announced May 21 in a MIT press release, "MIT awarded more than $2 million
in NEUP grants, fellowships. ". . .[http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2012/mit-doe-grants-fellowships.html]
There’s considerable chatter gaining
readership and comments on a number of green blogs and a few small newspapers.
The discussion that’s taking place is about how flawed and bias the MIT
research is, the remarkable compromised biological studies and conclusions;
and, the very fact that MIT would participate in such an unscientifically
produced piece of “research (?)”. I think the ongoing discussion will shortly
become a national story. MIT's reputation is at stake.
Yesterday, Sue Prent of the Green
Mountain Daily wrote about your study. Her writing follows:
MIT has released a study which, they
say, suggests that populations need not be evacuated in the future, should
another event like Fukushima take place!
That's right; long captive by the
now-threatened nuclear industry, in whose future it is heavily invested, MIT
has finally jumped the shark. Ignoring the large body of scientific evidence
very much to the contrary, MIT constructed its own experiment, carefully
designed to "prove" a thesis convenient to the industry: continued that
low-dose radiation over long periods of exposure is essentially harmless.
In a single stroke, the MIT study
attempts to overturn all existing science and eliminate a significant
collateral cost from the nuclear balance sheet.
Are people concerned, in the
aftermath of Fukushima, because evacuation plans almost everywhere have been
found gravely wanting? A simple paper fix from MIT, based on junk science,
allows the industry to maintain that exclusion zones aren't even necessary!
This isn't the first time MIT has
been found to be exercising extreme bias to make nuclear look more affordable.
In fact, the advocacy role of MIT on behalf of the industry is boldly apparent
in this description of a research grant program:
"Scholarship for Nuclear
Communications and Methods for Evaluation of Nuclear Project
Acceptability" will develop a model to characterize the factors affecting
social acceptance of nuclear projects by potential stakeholders. The nuclear
enterprise has long faced difficulties in gaining broad social acceptance for
success… Reliance upon public education efforts continues to be the main, and
largely unsuccessful, tactic to achieve success…" continued
Ian Goddard’s 10 minute videodoc
“MIT No-Evacuations Study Debunked" dissects portions of the research and
appears to destroy the study design, the protocol, the model, and the study’s
findings and conclusions. You should view it here as I'm sure you’ll be asked
about it… http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8YFe6Q08M8&feature=player_embedded
I look forward to your response.
Sincerely;
CISCO
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.