Atomic Show #219 – Mike Rosen misused Edward Calabrese’s Earth Day column
On Atomic Show #218 – Ed Calabrese – Researching Dose Response Dr. Calabrese shared some important stories about the data manipulations he had discovered relating to the establishment of the linear, no-threshold (LNT) dose response assessment.
Those stories will shake the established order. Not surprisingly, two commenters immediately added statements apparently aimed at discrediting Dr. Calabrese by associating him with other controversial topics. One of the comments was actually interesting enough to warrant investigation. Here is what Chris wrote:
Disappointingly, it appears Bob Applebaum is justified in being suspicious of Ed Calabrese’s objectivity.
Here find Dr. Calabrese in a recent seven minute monologue denying CO2 in climate change, and railing against the EPA in broad and highly misleading generalizations. http://www.cato.org/multimedia/media-highlights-radio/edward-j-calabreses-latest-commentary-we-need-new-earth-day-read
Science denial is nothing to be proud of.
Here is a screenshot of the page to which Chris linked.
I listened to the audio at the link provided, which was a clip from The Mike Rosen Show, a nationally syndicated radio program with some ties to the CATO Institute.
I could see why Chris wrote what he did, but there was no way that the person talking on the show was Ed Calabrese. There was no similarity in voice, accent or delivery. As shown by the screenshot above, the clip purported to be a reading of a column that Ed Calabrese had written for publication on Earth Day 2014 titled We Need a New Earth Day. The page even indicates that it features Edward J. Calabrese.
The next step in investigating was to find Calabrese’s original column. It became readily apparent that Mike Rosen had added quite a few of his own agenda driven opinions as editorial changes, even though there was nothing in his audio presentation to indicate to the listener which words were Calabrese’s and which words were Rosen’s.
What seems to have happened was that a polarizing organization with an agenda adapted and embellished the work of an evidence driven academic to make it sound like the academic was strongly endorsing its agenda. Then, because that agenda is not universally accepted, someone pointed to the adapted work, assuming that it represented Calabrese’s work and opinions. In that person’s mind, the adapted work discredited Calabrese and made it possible to legitimately dismiss his important discovery regarding the dishonest way that the LNT was imposed as the regulatory presumption for radiation health effects.
Just in case my written version of the story is not fully convincing, I prepared an audio file that includes a straight reading of Calabrese’s Earth Day 2014 column and a deconstructed, interrupted version of Rosen’s audio adaptation of that column with his editorial insertions and deletions.
Note: During my deconstruction, I mentioned the membership of the Genetics Committee of the Biological Effects of Atomic Radiation (BEAR) formed in 1956. Here is a full list of the members of that first version of that ad hoc committee that is now called the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR).
Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 21:58 — 10.2MB)
Subscribe: RSS
Fascinating. Mr. Rosen is also a columnist regularly featured in our local paper where he never, ever fails to insert doubt about global warming. Your post today would be an even more useful reference if you were to insert the year (1955? 1964?) of your BEAR Committee membership list, as many are likely to confuse it with the present day BEIR. Thanks!
There is a 2011 interview of Dr. Calabrese on-line (written) in which the interviewer (Marjorie Mazel Hecht) interjects global warming denial at the end of the interview. It was a kind of weird, almost completely irrelevant comment, that the interviewer apparently felt it was necessary to insert for some reason.
I’ll try to post the link. I can never remember how for some reason.
Calabrese Interview
Thanks, Jeff. As one might surmise by the title chosen for the interview, Managing Editor Hecht hardly neglects fascism, either. Might better be called “The Continuing Education of Prof Edward Calabrese.”
Can’t we just declare Godwin’s Law now and go home?
@Ed Leaver
Can you clarify your comment? I’m not sure what you are trying to say about Dr. Calabrese’s historical information.
Sorry. What I meant was that Dr. Calabrese agreed to an interview with a publication titled “21st Century Science & Technology” over which he had no editorial control. Which is typical and as it should be. The interviewer and managing editor abused the occasion to promote her own views on climate change and what she alleges were fascist tendencies of some noted fifties-era liberals, and included a nazi and stalin-era derogatory in her title lest anyone miss her point. Which is not typical and none of which beirs any relevance whatsoever to what Dr. Calabrese had to say. Continuing education is when you learn something new each day.
On a really bad day, two new things.
My comment was meant as my token of respect for Ms. Hecht’s transparency and journalistic integrity. No reflection whatsoever upon Prof Calabrese, Again, my apologies if it could be misconstrued otherwise.
@Ed Leaver
Thank you for explaining. If you read Hermann Muller’s biography and do some historical research about the other leaders of the science of genetics during his time you will find that many of them were working in areas that were later appropriated by the National Socialists. Specifically, they were often interested in eugenics, the idea that it is not only possible, but advantageous to attempt to breed better humans. I’m not accusing Muller of supporting the fascists; he was horrified by the twisted interpretations they produced of some of the basic work done by the eugenicists. However, before it became apparent how twisted the fascists were, Muller was intrigued enough by the changes happening in German science and politics to go there to work for a key year – 1932-1933. He left quickly once he had an up-close and personal view of what was happening, but he did not return to the US; he went to run genetics research programs in the Soviet Union for 5 years.
Therefore, Marge Hecht was not so far off in using her allusions when talking about actions performed by Muller. Though he was not a supporter of either the fascists or the stalinists, he dabbled in relationships with both of them.
The Rockefeller brothers (specifically John D. III) were quite interested in the eugenics movement and provided strong financial support through both direct donations and donations to chosen scientists through their various foundations (Rockefeller Foundation, Rockefeller Brothers Fund, etc.) They also provided financial and political support to Paul Ehrlich’s Zero Population Growth movement, which was a breeding ground for antinuclear “scientists” like John Holdren and provided many antigrowth and antinuclear messages.
I have mixed emotions about 21st Century Science and Technology. It is a LaRouche publication with some of the weirdness that implies. However, it has published some excellent work on atomic fission over the years, often providing an outlet for scientists and engineers whose work contradicted the story that the elites wanted to tell the world about nuclear energy. There is little doubt that LaRouche is a nut case, but if you can get past some of the nuttier exaggerations you can find some interesting information about the way that US and UK bankers and other groupthinkers of the top <<1% work to maintain their wealth and power. At the accepted risk of being dismissed as a "conspiracy nut," I've met enough of the elites and read enough documentation, including works like David Rockefeller's autobiography to believe that they really do work to protect their own interests and not the interests of all of the rest of us. Heck, Henry Kissinger used to state it quite clearly - "America has no permanent friends or enemies, only interests." I don't think he was actually talking about the America I know, but the America that he and his tight circle of elites view through their highly blindered vision of the world.
@Rod Adams
Looking at the original Calabrese article (the authorship of which is not in dispute), Calabrese makes his points quite clear. The article is presumably about “past deceptions” and “correcting the ongoing errors in environmental regulation,” and Calabrese provides two examples of where he believes such errors were made: University of East Anglia “Climategate” controversy, and Muller’s research as it relates to radiation protection and linear dose response model.
Regarding University of East Anglia emails … “eight committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct” (here). There was clearly a carefully timed and coordinated media storm over issue (of which Calabrese is referencing), and much fodder for climate change denialism and skepticism, but no substantive basis for the claims of scientific misconduct (all of which were thoroughly investigated). Failing to be aware of the findings of these investigations and reports, and claiming incident represents “past deceptions” and “errors in environmental regulation” places Calabrese squarely in the camp of climate change denialism and skepticism. If Mike Rosen made too much of this (in offering to “read on the air” the article), thankfully, we have Calabrese’s original words to draw on. If something in the lead article suggests Calabrese’s own words don’t make a thoroughly debunked and unsupported claim of “past deceptions” and “errors in environmental regulation” related to East Anglia emails and climate science … I’m certainly not seeing it. Perhaps you can be a little more clear in how you read this primary text, and what it says about Calabrese’s work and opinions on the topic?
Short of that … it seems we could just plainly ask him (and resolve the matter more directly)?
It seems to me the fundamental error that Mike Rosen makes, is equating environmental effects of CO2 with toxicity effects of chemicals and radiation, and further, he provides absolutely no evidence that the levels of CO2 being released into the atmosphere every year by the activities of man are below the threshold value, if you want to apply a threshold approach to GHG emissions.
I suppose you could reasonable make a “threshold” argument if you knew the rate at which GHG’s are *removed* from the atmosphere, and could show that the rate at which we were releasing it was at or near equilibrium. But, in fact, our emissions of GHGs are far above an equilibrium with natural sequestration, and that is reflected by CO2 measurements showing a steady increase in atmospheric concentration.