Talk:Ernest J. Sternglass

POV issues

The basic facts of the article seem fine to me but it is missing a huge alternative POV about Sternglass, namely that he is viewed as a semi-crackpot anti-nuclear agitator who uses shoddy methodology and constantly shifted from one unsupported claim to another in an effort to keep up his criticisms in the face of being disproven. At least, this is the impression of him that I got from Spencer Weart's Nuclear Fear, which is a pretty balanced account on the whole. Anyway, I'll try to add in (with references) these criticisms as well (not because I necessarily agree with them, but because they seem present in almost any balanced discussion of Sternglass), which are far beyond having just "upset Herman Kahn" (I'm fairly sure there are anti-nuclear people who don't want to associate with Sternglass for the same reasons). --Fastfission 16:03, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Fastfission, please don't make ad hominem personal insults about Sternglass being "semi-crackpot". If you want to see my alternative POV on Sternglass, see my top blog post at [[1]], which analyses errors in Sternglass' work. Notice that this (Wikipedia) article on Sternglass contains a lot of bias. First, it claims in passing that Herman Kahn minimises the effects of radiation, when in fact radiation is the topic Kahn dwells on, e.g., Kahn stated in his 1960 book On Thermonuclear War, Princeton University Press, p 24:

‘... those waging a modern war are going to be as much concerned with bone cancer, leukemia, and genetic malformations as they are with the range of a B-52 or the accuracy of an Atlas missile.’

Secondly, this Wiki article claims that Linus Pauling was warning that there is no safe threshold back in the 1960s. Scientifically, what matters is what evidence there is either for or against a threshold. Certainly there is no threshold for high-LET radiation like alpha and beta particles in tissue, because they are stopped within a small distance and the ionization density is large enough to overcome human DNA repair mechanisms like protein P53 (which was only discovered in the late 1970s). However, low-LET radiation like gamma rays, when received at either high or low dose rates, do show a threshold [[2]]; this data is from Japanese nuclear weapon attacks (where the dose rates were high, due to initial nuclear radiation) and from low-level radiation during an accident where Cobalt-60 got into steel used to make buildings lived in for 20 years by 10,000 people in Taiwan (see W.L. Chen, Y.C. Luan, M.C. Shieh, S.T. Chen, H.T. , Kung, K.L. Soong, Y.C.Yeh, T.S. Chou, S.H. Mong, J.T.Wu, C.P. Sun,W.P. Deng, M.F.Wu, and M.L. Shen, Is Chronic Radiation an Effective Prophylaxis Against Cancer?, published in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, Vol. 9, No. 1, Spring 2004, page 6, available in PDF format here: [[3]]).

Thirdly, as explained in my blog [[4]], Alice Stewart actually debunked Sternglass' model, instead of confirming it as this Wikipedia nonsense claims:

Sternglass first publicised his "theory" at 9th Annual Hanford Biological Symposium, May 1969. On 24 July 1969, Dr Alice Stewart wrote an article for the New Scientist, "The pitfalls of Extrapolation" which found a big problem:

"Sternglass has postulated a fetal mortality trend which would eventually produce rates well below the level which - according to his own theory - would result from background radiation." [[5]]

Fourthly, his book Before the Big Bang contains various errors and doesn't address or replace the standard model of particle physics. It's not a case that Sternglass belongs to a group of "crackpots", it's just a case that his work on these subjects is severely defective and wanting. If he did a lot more work on it and resolved the problems, then that would be fine. What causes difficulties is the dictatorial difficulty when people try to impose things which contain errors, without first correcting the errors, on the world. Labelling all people with alternative ideas "crackpots" by default isn't helpful, especially when you do it from anonymously under the name "Fastfission".

Sternglass may have a problem with nuclear power, but in that case he has the problem that the sun is nuclear and that background low-level radiation exists everywhere. Does he advise us to minimise it by living at the bottom of mineshafts in locations where there is little thorium-232, potassium-40, uranium-238 (and uranium decay daughters, like radon-222), etc? What about carbon-14 naturally in food? People like Sternglass have helped prejudice the public against the facts. I've traced the history of radiation hysteria here: [[6]], [[7]] in particular, and [[8]]. The basic conclusion is that the "no threshold" dictum was popularised on the basis of flawed paper by Professor E. B. Lewis, author of Leukemia and Ionizing Radiation, Science, 17 May 1957, v125, No. 3255, pp. 965-72. Lewis used very preliminary Japanese and other data which wasn't detailed enough to show that a threshold existed. He was arguing from ignorance, not from evidence! Yet his argument, which ignored dose rate effects and the quality factor of the radiation, i.e., high or low linear energy transfer (LET), was widely accepted at the time due to political prejudice about the Cold War, and has not been corrected as the facts have emerged since. - Nigel Cook 172.207.139.192 (talk) 22:04, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Nigel, I didn't intend to make it sound like I thought he was a semi-crackpot. As I said, I don't hold a strong position on him personally—the point is that it is unbalanced and there has been a lot of serious criticism of Sternglass over time, including that he was basically a crackpot who constantly changed his focus whenever his claims of the moment got debunked (and I tried to indicate where I had gotten this impression as well—namely Weart's book). The article makes it sound like he's been considered a source of great information over the course of his career, which as I understand it is not exactly true. So ease up a bit, don't misread me, and don't assume I simply label people with alternative ideas crackpots, because that's not the case. --Fastfission (talk) 20:07, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I've added Alice Stewart's comments on Sternglass, and quote from a review in Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. Neither is particularly laudatory, and accusation of a lack of balance or WP:UNDUE weight won't hold much water, considering that Stewart's work on risks was groundbreaking and not very welcome by the nuclear industry, and that the Bulletin has long been a forum for criticism of the nuclear industry as well. "Semi-crackpot" is too harsh, but it's pretty apparent that Sternglass is not the great scientist his followers think he is. Yakushima (talk) 08:17, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I can tell you this: Sternglass once spent 6 hours alone with Albert Einstein, at Einstein's home in Princeton. Mr. Einstein certainly didn't regard him as a crackpot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.253.227.99 (talk) 20:54, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Response

I'm all for inclusion of facts and references demonstrating that Sternglass is viewed as a semi-crackpot. I'd *much* rather see hard evidence that proves that his concerns about fallout were unfounded.

I think he represents a POV that deserves airing, and certainly was an important figure in an era which played down the costs of nuclear fallout ... at least until Kennedy signed the Partial_Test_Ban_Treaty, demonstrating that concern about the testing was shared by a number of responsible parties. Twang 20:29, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

• I agree that his POV deserves airing, I just think that it needs to be pointed out where people have strongly disagreed with it and the reputation he has among the wider circle of critics. I'll try to add that soon so we can take off the NPOV notice. --Fastfission 21:50, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

ADDITIONAL COMMENT FROM ANOTHER WIKIPEDIA READER: I am a distant relative of Ernest J. Sternglass, and as far as the family goes, his intellect is held in the highest esteem. My contribution to this study is to ask whether it is possible, that his detractors do so at the behest of the Nuclear Industry. We have all seen how big Oil Corporations fund "bad science" which they can then quote to further their geopolitical ends. Is this not true of the Nuclear Industry as well?

---

Tommy Mandel

---

Tommy Mandel —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tommy Mandel (talk • contribs) 20:46, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

POV check

I have made some changes and have nominated the article to be checked for its neutrality. Johnfos (talk) 02:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Controversy

Unfortunately, in the case of a person who holds controversial views such as Sternglass does, it will not be possible to (a) ignore the fact of the controversies, and (b) put forth an article that addresses all of the controversial issues in a way that pleases everyone, no matter how factual or well-sourced statements may be included.

Sternglass claims that over 400 babies died as a result of TMI, yet I have read that the infant-mortality rates in the Three Mile Island area were well within the normal variances—and, in fact, that they decreased slightly in the wake of the incident. So who knows what is factual and what is political propaganda? 64.85.229.248 (talk) 19:40, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Good work editors

I like to see a controversial topic presented with the expert opinion on the matter, but apart from the Baby Tooth Survey, which sadly is not taken to task here, whomever balanced most of Sternglass' other tabloid grabbing FUD, deserves a sincere thank you, as it may not be much but it might just stop another generation from being led by these, perhaps well intentioned, but ultimately science-fiction promoting, charlatans.

This is one article that definitely doesn't need to go on the giant "needs massive work" list.

With gratitude, Boundarylayer (talk) 02:40, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ernest J. Sternglass. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060212050101/http://www.radiation.org/index.html to http://radiation.org/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:00, 23 September 2017 (UTC)