1. My recollection (and the laws may have changed) is that you cannot be in court as an expert witness on engineering without a PE license. I did not see a citation for a PE License for Mr. Gundersen.
    I know if I testified that you cannot compare mrems from chest x-rays vs tritium my PE license would be in the shredder pretty quick. After all, that is why we have dose effect calculations for mrems in the first place. 😉

    1. He is what he claims to be. See his CV in the last ten pages of this transcript: http://www.beyondnuclear.org/storage/fermi_3_gundersen_declaration_dec_8_2009.pdf
      But given the evasive type of testimony that he has presented as a paid expert witness for several antinuclear interests, it is obvious to me he is just a vendu at best, a whore at worst. I suspect that for enough money he would be just as vigorous in support of nuclear power. A Google search on his name is quite revealing.

  2. DV82XL – thank you for pointing to the CV. As Robert noted, there is no indication of a PE, but there is also apparently no requirement for a PE in order to be an expert witness.
    I did have to chuckle a bit with regard to the claim of being a licensed reactor operator – especially in light of a recent email exchange that I had with someone who will remain nameless. Here is the specifics on Arnie’s achievement of that qualification:
    Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI)

  3. Rod, I have done two case studies on the effects of forensic businesses on research outcomes and quality of research. In one case study, involving two social scientists, I found that the social scientists had slanted their interpretation of data, seemingly ignored valid finding from other studies, and in some instances even ignored their own data, in reaching findings that were consistent with their forensic business interest. In a third case, a medical researcher, misinterpreted his own data to the extent that he reach conclusions that were exactly opposite of what his data showed. He continued to do so after a research institution looked at his data, and pointed out his errors. He continued to base court testimony on his junk science, until he crossed the path of the FDA, which ordered him to cease and desist.

  4. Devious. These people have fought nuclear their whole lives; they’ll never change. Even if they know that means the destruction of the environment through more coal.

  5. what bugs me is, how do they choose the people that testify to such committees? I guess the matter under discussion is pretty much settled once the names are chosen, so how does that happen?
    It reminds me of the old adage that power does not reside in the king, but in the advisor to the king.

  6. Rod. Thanks for this post! As you can see by my blog, I was caught up in coal. But, get this link to VPR from a few weeks ago…
    Especially this quote from Public Service Commissioner David O’Brien
    (O’Brien) “To my knowledge, Mr. Gundersen never came forward and said there are underground pipes carrying radionuclides, and here’s the information that clearly supports that. I’m not aware of that, because then this would have all come up six months ago.”
    I’ve got to post on this stuff but I am so behind. I appreciate your blogging about it.

  7. I would think a committee like this can call anyone they want. A lot of what goes on in politics is for show. People sometimes want contradictory and nonsensical things, and politicians have to be seen to be attempting to provide them. If someone wants to get into the spotlight in front of this committee and claim he’s an expert and refuse to answer the simple questions of how can I compare this radiation to a chest xray, he isn’t passing the sniff test. On the other hand, if a groundswell of public opinion develops that they want this plant closed, it will be closed. You’d want to see polling data about nuclear power in Vermont.
    From the Addison County Independent story “Local lawmakers take aim at Yankee nuclear plant”: “Rep. Steve Maier, D-Middlebury, stressed that lawmakers do not have the authority to shut down Vermont Yankee this year.

  8. A case of those who can – do, and those who can’t – testify?
    Maybe Entergy should just hire Gundersen and have him offer to “modify and extend” his remarks.

  9. Thanks for the post. Gee, since Arnie Gundersen is/was in the decommissioning business and it would be to his advantage to have Vermont Yankee close and be decommissioned, do you suppose that influenced his testimony?

  10. Not just ‘devious or dumb’ but the remarks are repeated multiple times! Thank you for the post, I think. ‘Checks and balances… who should have known that what they’re telling us is not true…’ Very easy to say, but when you position yourself as the paid checks and balances, who is responsible for refuting or bringing balance to your opinion, Mr. Gundersen. You assert misrepresentation (and anyone can accuse) but where is the opposition’s explanation? Yet we know full well in the court of public opinion, trying to explain what was meant by ‘no buried pipes’ will automatically be interpreted as a prevarication, rather than a professional distinction.
    I’m disgusted…

  11. Mr. Adams, you seem to be quite informed on yesterday’s testimony here in Vermont when you are in Maryland. Many of the words you use to defame the Gundersens were not uttered in yesterday’s hearing. Presumably you got your info from Entergy’s lobbyist. You might opt to be a little more careful going forward.

    1. @Not to Worry – I got my information by watching the entire testimony and by doing some additional research on Mr. and Mrs. Gundersen using available public materials on the web.
      If you would care to point out where I defamed or misquoted, please provide the details. When it comes to defamation, please remember that the “devious or dumb” words were provided directly by Mr. Gundersen in his testimony about Entergy.
      That last part of your comment sounded vaguely threatening. Was it supposed to?

  12. 3/15/2011 , what do you have to say about the current situation Mr.Adams? Will you defend the promotion of Yankee for another 20 years even after the German govt closed all 7 of it’s pre-1980 plants?!?

    1. Nate – I believe that the likelihood of a tsunami striking Vernon, Vermont, is fairly remote.
      Germany doesn’t experience many tsunamis either.

Comments are closed.

Recent Comments from our Readers

  1. Avatar
  2. Avatar
  3. Avatar
  4. Avatar
  5. Avatar

Similar Posts