Talk:Helen Caldicott

Some? Who?

Some argue? Who? Many others? Who? Please see WP:AWW Travb (talk) 08:39, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Criticisms section of article on Caldicott

I feel that the the "Criticisms of her work" section of this article appears to be extremely biased, however since the criticisms are unsourced I have no way to check their accuracy. Looking through the history section of this page I find that they were added on July 19, then on July 22 a different person attempted to add an alternate POV to the criticisms, but on July 23 the origional author of the critcisms edited the alternate POV out.

My concerns are as follows:

[QUOTE]Being a patronising public speaker. As a children's doctor, Caldicott has been required to simplify complex technical information. This approach may not be as effective, or even offensive, to adult audiences. [END QUOTE]

If this statement is credible it would follow that kindergarten teachers insult the children's parents by speaking to them in the same manner they speak to a six year old. Furthermore, the majority of a pediatrician's time is spent speaking with other physicians, the medical staff, and children's parents, not children.

[QUOTE]Using fear tactics. Since her address to 1 million people at an anti-nuclear rally in New York in the early 1980s, Caldicott has frequently described the medical effects of radiation, cancer and other worst-case scenarios of nuclear power and weapons as an introduction or even major component of her public addresses. [END QUOTE]

Yes, I would assume that the major component of her public addresses are about the medical effects of radiation, cancer and other worst-case scenarios of nuclear power and weapons since that is her message.

To call this "Using fear tactics" would suggest that, for instance, to speak out against the consequences of driving while intoxicated is using "fear tactics", since the result may also be very grim.

[QUOTE] Being factually misleading. Caldicott has been known to overstate or misrepresent statistics by quoting them out of context, or even make outrageous claims without any basis in fact. Two notable instances are mentioned above. [END QUOTE]

For all I know, this criticism itself may be "outrageous" and "without any basis in fact" since I tried to google for information to substantiate this claim, but I didn't come up with much other than a letter to the editor of a newspaper of some years ago. Clearly this statement needs to have some evidence to back it up.

[QUOTE]Being politically naive. Caldicott's utopian vision of world politics verges on conspiracy theory. She has a deep mistrust of politicians on all sides. [END QUOTE]

In my opinion this "critcism" could well be used as the Wikipedia poster child of what separates POV from factual information suitable for Wikipedia. I too have a mistrust of politicians on all sides and would like to see the world a better place. Does that make me politically naive and a believer in conspiracy theories also?

I read the information at this site that offers suggestions for writing articles or editing them and the following quotes suggest that this article does not meet Wikipedia's standards:

• Accusations - Use quotes and locate reliable sources.

• When a fact is not common knowledge or the information being related to is a subjective assessment, the information should be attributed and cited.

• Information supression - Ignoring significant sitable information in support of a minority view.

Gandydancer 16:08, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

A former weapon designer comments....

Back in 1986 I took the time to read Missile Envy, revised edition. The number of factual mistakes, the utter lack of understanding of the underlying issues of the prevention of nuclear conflict, and the clearly pro-Soviet bias made this book an interesting aside but not a serious basis for informed discussion. The statement that the Soviet Union did not have a first strike inclination is laughable. This view is reinforced now that we have regular dialog with their former war planners.

Let me be plain, I am not a fan of nuclear conflict. It would be horrible. But to suggest the end of the world as we know it is a bit of a stretch. Facts don't suggest otherwise. Facts state otherwise.

Yes, it was and is true that large corporations earn enormous sums by providing defense related goods and services to the nation. But is also true that without these businesses we would still build systems that, if used, would bring us a hell on earth. The Soviets did this very thing.

To suggest we rid ourselves of all nuclear weapons and systems is akin to suggesting we rid ourselves of all guns and bullets. These suggestions are equally naive. There is factual evidence that the US and Soviet Union did not engage in nuclear conflict because of each other's nuclear capabilities. I've worked closely with FSU personnel since the end of the Soviet Union and can relate to you that they feel the same way - it was the very persistent focus by both governments on these weapons that prevented their use.

The topic of nuclear war is complicated and emotionally charged. There is no reason to "spin" one view or another. The facts are sufficient to allow the average Terran to draw their own conclusion. Stating, and restating, outright distortions, misrepresentations, and yes, lies, does not serve the public good. Dr. Caldicott has consistently committed these transgressions in her effort's to influence you. It wasn't necessary to do so in order to engender the discussion but she did it anyway. It is necessary to question both her motivations and credibility.

Nuclear electrical power generation has the single safest track record of any form of generation. The issue of waste disposal is a political one, not a scientific or engineering one. It is a fact that reprocessing weapon components into MOX makes the world safer from rouge nations/groups gaining nuclear weapons. It is recycling, nothing more.

I'll leave you with a few things to consider while you decide for yourself Dr. Caldicott's credibility:

Soviet defense plans called for them to detonate multiple high yield nuclear weapons above Moscow in order to stop inbound US warheads. These would certainly have caused massive EMP and other burst effects in the greater Moscow area. Yet the Soviet scientists and engineers, as good and sometimes better than ours, designed and deployed this system. Obviously they didn't think it would destroy their command and control systems or kill off large portions of their population. And just for the record: we didn't have 60 warheads aimed at Moscow. We had 400 because we deemed that the required number to overwhelm their defense capability.

Dr. caldicott has mentioned many times the widespread, long-term, genetic harm nuclear weapon use will cause. She notes that Japan has seen this very effect from the 1945 bombings. The fact is there is zero scientific evidence the two nuclear weapons dropped on Japan have resulted in any, let alone long-term multi generational, genetic malformations among the population of the target cities or their offspring.

There is no scientific evidence that even one cancer resulted for the TMI accident. To suggest otherwise is to knowingly engage in intellectual dishonesty. And no credible correlation can be drawn between Chernobyl and any Western designed, built, or operated nuclear reactor. What the folks at Chernobyl did was incredibly stupid. Made all the worse by the reactor's lack of a containment structure. We in the West have learned this lesson - don't build a Soviet era design reactor and don't build a reactor without containment. To suggest this accident could happen in the West is fear mongering at its worst.

Isletof misfittoys (talk) 20:30, 24 August 2008 (UTC)isletofmisfittoys

Criticism section

I had hoped for a discussion on the criticism section, but there has been none. I feel that the criticisms as written were not verifiable, thus one is unable to make an alternate POV. So I finally deleted them.

If someone feels they need to be put back in the article, I would appreciate it if you would discuss it first.

Thanks.

Gandydancer 21:14, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I probably would like them put back in. I just saw her on Tavis Smiley and she spit out a bunch of nonsense on that show such as stating that blowing up a nuclear power plant is equivalent to dropping a nuclear bomb! From that interview, and my physics degrees, I could tell right away that she knows *zilch* about nuclear physics ... not even the most basic concepts. 22:48, 10 October 2006 (UTC)69.139.238.47

Though I do agree the previous entry was biased and unverifiable, I think it would be quite relevant to include a section discussing criticism of Dr. Caldicott, as she indeed is very often criticized and labelled an "alarmist". People who read up about her would probably want to be aware of that. 24.222.162.133 04:24, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I shall abstain from editing this article because I have some very big problems with this er... lady.. However, I think that there is something worth mentioning: This woman is very very anti-nuclear. She is not just anti-nuclear weapons. She is not just anti-nuclear energy. She is anti-nuclear research. She is anti-nuclear medicine. She is anti smoke-detector. Anti-nuclear-imaging. Anti-radioisotopic-powered-space-probes. She is anti nuclear-fusion. Even if tomorrow someone could demonstrate a fusion reactor which produced energy, she would oppose it, or at least, I would have to assume so. She simply does not believe that mankind has any business doing anything which involves something smaller than an atom. Please read her website and it becomes clear. This is something which I see as very much worth mentioning. DrBuzz0 01:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Criticism of "Criticisms"

I agree that criticism can be informative, but since this was my first Wiki edit I did a lot of reading first and was unable to come up with anything that would meet Wiki's standards.

Re the comment that Caldicott knows "zilch" about atomic energy, please see this article at the Union of Concerned Scientist's page:

http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/nuclear_safety/nuclear-plant-risk-studies-failing-the-grade.html

[QUOTE] An accident at a US nuclear power plant could kill more people than were killed by the atomic bomb dropped on Nagasaki.1 The financial repercussions could also be catastrophic. The 1986 accident at the Chernobyl nuclear plant cost the former Soviet Union more than three times the economical benefits accrued from the operation of every other Soviet nuclear power plant operated between 1954 and 1990.2[/QUOTE]

64.222.222.39 22:15, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I am appalled at this entry. The writer has taken a few facts from the life of a remarkable person, and used them to hang one odd, unattributed criticism after another. Surely this cannot stand?

This article is pretty biased (and I know nothing about the woman)

I've just put the criticisms section back, but modified a bit.

I really do think it should be included, as Caldicott really is famous for making biased, extremeist claims that really are departed from the laws of Physics in a lot of cases. However, i do understand and respect the need for referencing, verifiability, etc.

• I think is a fair addition with references and does clarify a bit about the emotion she uses for arguing her points, rather than the science. Starkrm 18:46, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

• The references that you have provided to support your additions can hardly be called fair and unbiased since they come from sites that are pro nuclear energy. Greenpeace has a much different POV:

[quote]

Despite what the nuclear industry tells us, building enough nuclear power stations to make a meaningful reduction in greenhouse gas emissions would cost trillions of dollars, create tens of thousands of tons of lethal high-level radioactive waste, contribute to further proliferation of nuclear weapons materials, and result in a Chernobyl-scale accident once every decade. Perhaps most significantly, it will squander the resources necessary to implement meaningful climate change solutions.[/quote]

Caldicott provides numerous examples of dishonesty on the part of the nuclear energy industry in her books. Granted we are speaking of her POV here, however it is not for you nor I to decide who is telling the truth and one would have to be pretty naive to state that industry, including the nuclear industry, would never lie!

As you know, Wikipedia clearly states that criticisms must be well-documented. Pro-industry sites and blogs are certainly not a credible source for documentation. I am going to remove your critcisms. I will not remove the sites you have posted as a reader can refer to them and make up their own mind.

• I am going to remove the addition slipped in that attempts to make Linus Pauling appear a little nutty. Go read his page for crying out loud.

Gandydancer

• • It is more than obvious that you are using your POV, as stated here, to decide how to edit this page. The criticisms were sourced. If you read the sources, you will find them to be a point by point refutation of Helen Caldicott's arguments, and not just babble. Whether or not the sites are pro-nuclear is not the point. It does not matter. They logically bring up a basis to dispute what Helen has to say. Helen is decidedly anti-nuclear. It is a part of her biography. To disallow a reference from a well documented web site because of it's pro or anti nuclear advocacy is to be overtly POV. The criticism is valid and should remain. Starkrm 14:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• First, regarding Linus Pauling. A look at the Wiki article on Pauling clearly shows that to introduce him as "[the] unorthodox Nobel Laureate and alternative medicine advocate" is to completely ignore his numerous scientific accomplishments and concentrate only on his work with ascorbic acid. Incidently, though beside the point, Vit C actually is now being used as a cancer therapy though Pauling did not live to see it.

Now regarding the criticisms that have been added. Again, Wiki clearly states that criticisms, especially criticisms of a living person, must be well documented, and several examples of acceptable sources are mentioned.

In ref #1 you use a TV appearance to back your claim that Caldicott does not offer "any hard basis for such claims". If she would have been asked if she had evidence and said "no" that would be acceptable, however that is not the case.

Ref #2 Nuclear is our Future is a blog and the poster, Stewart Peterson is merely a poster, not an expert.

Ref #3 and #4 are from NEI, Nuclear Energy Institure, a group who state they "encourage the development of nuclear energy". The posts you refer to are from their blog/forum. Ref #3 was written by David Bradish a data analyst, and #4 was written by Eric McLain "web content manager for NEI".

Now certainly I do have a POV; I agree with Caldicott that nuclear is not the way to go. And I am well aware that others have a different POV. But I think we'd all have to agree that the Caldicott Wiki article is not the place to debate our views on nuclear power! Our goal is to present factual information and let the reader make up his/her own mind.

Gandydancer 02:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• • On Linus Pauling - saying he is an unorthodox proponent of alternative medicine is not POV, it is factual. Why do you see it as a negative statement? In no way is the reference to criticisms of Helen's method of argument a debate about nuclear power. The references may be blogs but they quote Helen directly and factually state the criticisms against her argument. Mention should be made that Helen appeals to emotion and not to science in her criticism about the industry. I shouldn't need to remind you that wikipedia has a written policy of "Do not simply revert changes in a dispute. When someone makes an edit you consider biased or inaccurate, improve the edit, rather than reverting it." STOP REVERTING IT, improve it. Starkrm 15:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• • Also, I am not the writer of the criticism portion. Starkrm 15:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• Please see the box at the top of this page which states poorly sourced information about a living person must be removed immediately! I did look at the sources you provided and to me they did not appear to meet Wikipedia's standards because they are blogs run by groups that support nuclear energy. Surely you don't believe everything you read in a blog? I will take another look at your sources and get back to this issue but I don't have time today.

Gandydancer 12:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

• • Again, I did not write the criticism or provide the sources, but I do defend them as fair. Look at them point by point -

• • "As a vocal opponent of the nuclear industry in all its forms, [She would certainly agree with this] with an uncompromisingly provocative style, [she would certainly be proud of this] Caldicott has faced a degree of criticism. [without doubt, she would agree]

• • Famously, [she is well known for this] Caldicott repeatedly calls the entire nuclear industry liars, [it is her assumption, as she has stated, that the nuclear industry is entirely without concience and full of habitual liars, again she is well known for this!] without providing any hard basis for such claims.[2] [calling an industry liars is a difficult, if not impossible, thing to provide a hard basis for, yet she insists on making that claim, the criticism simply points out that there is actually no hard basis for such a claim.]

• • The factual and scientific integrity of Dr. Caldicott's claims and books on nuclear issues have been repeatedly challenged, [challenged becuase she appeals to emotion and rhetoric rather than fact and logic, it isn't a criticism per se, it is a statement of her method] and in many cases,[3 of them are referenced] demonstrated to be significantly flawed from a scientific viewpoint.[certainly the science does not justify many of her criticisms of the nuclear industry]"

• • These criticisms are not aimed at how she is as a living person, they are aimed at her method in order to bring balance to the science in the article. Starkrm 14:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

• Hi Starkrm, Thanks for your opinion, however we are still in disagreement. Point by point:

• • No we do not know that Caldicott would agree that she has an uncompromising provotative style or that it would be something that she would be proud of. Remember that others with a different POV than yours would state she is not afraid to stand up to the nuclear energy industry and tell the truth about the dangers of nuclear power.

• • At your source for your second point, the TV interview, Caldicott states again and again that she backs up her claims in her book, thus it is incorrect to state, as you do, that she provides no hard basis for her claims.

• • It is not accurate to state that Caldicott uses only rhetoric and emotion as her "method". Her books are filled with facts and statistics.

• • Re your efforts to bring balance to the article. I did again look at the sources you have provided and I still feel industry blogs are not suitable sources to prove your point. I can find articles at the Union of Concerned Scientists and Greenpeace, just to name two, that disagree with the statements made at the blogs you site.

Again, I do not have a problem with criticisms but they must be used in accordance with Wiki's standards, and I don't feel that your criticisms meet that standard. Since we seem to be deadlocked I have asked one of Wiki's "helpers" to take a look at the article. Gandydancer 13:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Just checking in on this. I work with Dr. Caldicott. The statement "uncompromisingly provocative style" is, in my opinion a statement of opinion and not a description of rhetorical style which could be done if someone was interested, but as it is now, I don't this it's a fair statement for a living person's biography.

The criticisms section of this has always been quite contested. Writing it with an even hand is a challenge.

I am going to change the last sentence and move it up so that the entry is in chronological order.

• I think input from someone who knows her would be valuable. (Please sign your comments.) It is very difficult to make an article like this non-POV. I think that there is a need for a criticism, not to make it "balanced" or "fair" but simply to point out that some of her points are not supported by science and/or are not factual from the point of view of a physicist. Again, I am not the writer of the criticism, but Helen is known in the industry as being very good at appealing to emotion rather than logic. People are emotional when they hear the word "radiation" or "nuclear" but it is unfair to label an entire industry as "liars" when it is unprovable. I think the writer of the criticism was pointing out references to people who have examined Helen's arguments, point by point, and shown how they are flawed when examined against science. Starkrm

• Well I have seen neither hide nor hair of the "helper" I asked to take a look at this article and our discussion.

Starkrm, although you state you are not interested in fairness and balance but just wish to show that science does not support Caldicott's assertions, you are using an industry blog written by a data/statistician person, not a scientist. Also I note that you have also reverted my deletion of the word "wrongly" and are using a site that charges a fee to see the article to back up your position.

I did a lot of research when I first noticed how biased this article was, and I can say that I did not find anything that I did not feel may have a bias one way or the other. The person that works with Caldicott and made a post was right about the difficulty of writing the criticisms for this article! But I do have a suggestion that would comply with with Wiki's standards. Wiki suggests that direct quotes be used for criticism. Starkrm, could you re-write the criticisms using quotes? Gandydancer 22:34, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

The thing is, when we're talking about questions of pure physical sciences, which is what most of the debate over nuclear issues is rooted in, then it doesn't matter who says what, if they're an environmentalist group, or a pro-nuclear industry group, or whoever. What you say either agrees with science, it stands up to scientific peer review, proper scientific method, and experimental test, or it does not. It's straightforward to work out what the truth is, on questions of science, and very hard to get away with saying, oh, but they're a biased such-and-such group, if they've done the science properly, and published the details of their work so they can be subjected to various degrees of peer review.

AWeishaupt 14:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• Yes I agree, however Starkrm is not using peer reviewed material for his/her references, he/she is using the blog run by The Nuclear Energy Institute which states at their website "is the organization of the nuclear energy and technologies industry" and their goal is to "encourage the development of nuclear energy". Furthermore, the writer that he references to, David Bradish, is not even a scientist but a data analyst.

Harvey Wasserman, associated with Greenpeace has this to say about NEI:

"The Better Business Bureau recently recommended that the Nuclear Energy Institute pull its advertising that claims atomic reactors are clean and nonpolluting. The NEI is an industry front group. The BBB says that reactors cause thermal pollution in their outtake pipes and cooling towers, and also create substantial amounts of greenhouse gases in uranium production. In short, the Better Business Bureau has punctured the industry's claim the Vermont Yankee and other reactors are any kind of solution for climate chaos. The idea that VY is a "green" facility is utter nonsense."

And it goes without saying that the people at NEI don't have anything good to say about Harvey either--or Greenpeace and anyone else associated with any environmental group that does not agree with their stance that nuclear power is cheap and clean.

Ref #1 that Starkrm uses is apparently a paper written by Thomas Gerusky, however as I said earlier it is not available unless one wants to pay for it so I don't know what he has to say about the Three Mile accident. However I did find this from him on the web:

"The ensuing days were filled with tension, the possibility of an explosion from a hydrogen bubble growing inside the reactor, the visit of President Jimmy Carter and the governor to the plant, the planning for a massive evacuation of the residents of the area in case things got worse, continuing releases of inert radioactive gases from the stack, the hoard of press from all over the world, and finally, the subsequent relaxation of the recommendation for evacuation based upon the knowledge that there was no potential for an explosion.

For us, the NRC, the utility and the public in the vicinity of TMI, the cleanup of the reactor over the next 10 years, the need to vent the remaining radioactive Krypton from the building before anyone could enter, learning that the fuel had melted and the expenditure of over a billion dollars kept the accident in our minds. The reactor has now been mothballed with considerable radioactive material still inside. It will stay that way until it’s sister reactor, Three Mile Island I, is shut down. They will be decommissioned together, when the next generation also will learn what happened on March 28, 1979."

So this would suggest that the Three Mile accident was a lot more than just media hype, as one post at NEI suggested.

Since I have not heard from the "helper" and it has been a week I have requested another helper to look at the article. Since Starkrm has been unwilling to rewrite the criticism section using quotes, I am going to delete it again. I will attempt to write a criticism in hopes it will satisfy all but it will take me a few days. It would be good to get more input from the person who works with Caldicott Gandydancer 17:44, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I keep telling you I neither wrote it nor sourced it. I am just trying to make it non-POV. NONE of your above points are relevant to this article. The criticism simply states that Helen's scientific method is in question. As far as the three mile island issue - Helen's specific claim that Sr-90 ended up in hersheys chocolate is untenable since it was absolutely clear that Sr-90 was not released into the enviroment. I have tried rewriting the criticism to make it more acceptable. Please do not just delete. Leave it and try to improve when you have the time. Starkrm 18:03, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• I don't know how Wiki could make this any clearer:

What is a reliable source? Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand.

Clearly this rules out both Greenpeace and an industry blog as a reliable source! This means you can NOT use your source to state:

The factual and scientific integrity of Dr. Caldicott's claims and books on nuclear issues are repeatedly challenged, and in some cases, have been demonstrated to be scientifically flawed.

You can say they are challanged by the folks at NEI, but you can NOT use a nuclear energy blog to prove it while knowledgeable people at Greenpeace, for instance, agree with Caldicott.

Furthermore, you can say:

Famously, Caldicott repeatedly labels the entire nuclear industry liars, regardless of history or use, without providing any hard basis for such claims.

And you use a half hour TV show to prove that statement. Caldicott's books are filled with facts and figures. Just because you don't agree with them does not mean she is wrong.

Starkrm, you keep asking that I edit the criticisms you have added. If I could I would but they are built using refs that I do not feel are acceptable for Wiki and thus there is no way I can "fix" them. The only reason that I am not going to delete them again is that I figure you would just put them back. Re the SR-90, please point me to a credible source since when I deleted the word "wrongly" the only thing I could find after a lengthy search was a letter to the editor from some years ago, and I can't even find that anymore. Your addition for Pauling needs to go also, but I will wait a few days to see if the person I tried to contact for help shows up.

BTW, you keep saying these are not your sources and so on--well they are now because you are the one that insists they are acceptable for Wiki's standards. Gandydancer 19:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

It is clear to me that you can only see this from your POV. I am trying to promote scientifically sound principles. BUT, I assume you will only see me as being pro-nuclear, so I suggest you put in your request for remediation then be patient, it may take a few weeks. Starkrm 20:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• Since you continue to insist that a blog from a nuclear industry site meets Wiki's standards for a reliable source and clearly would revert any changes I may make, I have no choice for now but to bow to your decisions Starkrm. (gandydancer June 2007)

Look, if you're talking about a factual scientific claim, for example the claim that 90-Sr did or did not get into Hershey's chocolate after Three Mile Island, and people like Caldicott say that it did, and groups like NEI say that it did not, then clearly one of the two must be wrong.

If the science is done properly, if the analysis is reported properly, and the proper Scientific Method is employed when you're doing the science, and you use decent primary source material, and you submit your work openly to the scientific community - and the public - for peer review, then we find out who is right and who is wrong pretty quickly.

Caldicott cites scientific works, such as the work of Jan Willem Storm van Leewen and Philip Smith in particular, that has been shown by several different groups of scientists to be inaccurate and flawed. Her references in her latest book are not the kind of references you'd expect to see in a credible factual book, they're largely news articles, discredited scientific reports, anti-nuclear websites and so forth.

The following document was personally written by myself. It's not complete, and is still being written and edited, so there are incomplete and sloppily written parts, and the references aren't included yet, so please forgive that.

But it will serve to illustrate the kind of misleading statements and junk science that Caldicott continually employs.

http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/~lweston/nuclear.pdf

If groups like NEI are so untrustworthy, can you show us where they are making statements that are misleading or untrue, and conclusively show us how they are untrue?AWeishaupt 15:35, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• Please understand that I am not calling your research and your opinions wrong--you may be correct in everything you say. And NEI may also be correct in their review of the Caldicott book. And I am not saying that Caldicott is correct about everything in her books, maybe she is and maybe not. What I am saying is that if you are going to state in Caldicott's Wiki article that she is incorrect, you have to be able to back up your statement with a source that meets Wiki's standards. I have already asked Starkrm to use quotes, for instance "Stewart Peterson, a data analyst and blogger at the pro-nuclear site NEI...". Of course the problem is obvious since there are an equal number of bloggers at the anti sites that will dispute everything that Peterson has to say.

If you can find some real science somewhere and use quotes that would be great. I would welcome a good criticism section. But it is not for Wiki to say Caldicott is wrong about this or that, or the strontium 90 as far as that goes, since there are several sites on the web that state it was impossible to say it was not realeased during the Three Mile accident since the measurment devices were not even working. For Wiki it is better to say a "he said/she said" without deciding who is right. Gandydancer 21:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, cool. I'll try and compile some quotes and brief examples of typical scientific criticism.

With regards to the Strontium-90, it's not that it was impossible to say it was not realeased during the Three Mile accident since the measurment devices were not working, it's that only gases and possibly the most volatile fission products - isotopes of Xenon, Krypton and possibly Iodine - were released. None of the less volatile, solid fission products could physically have been released. AWeishaupt 01:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• That's good news. When I was thinking of trying to rewrite it I did find this fact sheet that I planned to use:

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/3mile-isle.html

Is it OK with you and Starkrm if I delete the changes Starkrm has made which I do not feel are properly sourced till you write a new criticism?

The other issue re Pauling remains problematic for me. Do you have an opinion on that? Gandydancer 12:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• "...by unorthodox Nobel Laureate and alternative medicine advocate Linus Pauling." What part of that statement do you have a problem with? It is nearly word for word from his wikipedia page.

I think it is essential to state that Helen uses a certain style that appeals to emotion rather than hard science. You are assuming that because something is a criticism it automatically means it is a negative. People around me could certainly come up with criticisms about my life without wanting to be hurtful to me. I tried to rewrite the criticism section to remove blanket statements. As far as Gandydancer being asked to rewrite the criticism, it was first suggested by them "I will attempt to write a criticism in hopes it will satisfy all but it will take me a few days." I simply suggested leaving it as it was until those few days were up.

Let's break the criticism apart bit by bit.

"As a vocal opponent of the nuclear industry in all its forms, with an uncompromising style, Caldicott has faced a degree of criticism." This is an absolutely true statement and does not contain one shred of negativity about Helen. She is an uncompromising vocal opponent of the nuclear industry and has faced criticism.

"Famously, Caldicott repeatedly labels the entire nuclear industry liars, regardless of history or use, without providing any hard basis for such claims." The source referenced here is a repeat of her statment that the entire nuclear industry is nothing but lies. There is no hard basis for such a claim. The criticism does not claim that there are NO liars in the industry but only that there is no basis for a claim that the ENTIRE industry is a lie. It is a great example of the sort of blanket statment by Helen that appeals to emotion.

"The factual and scientific integrity of Dr. Caldicott's claims and books on nuclear issues are repeatedly challenged, and in some cases, have been demonstrated to be scientifically flawed." The references here are examples of the clear demonstration (whatever other motives the websites quoted may have is irrelevant to this particular case) that the science Helen uses is flawed in some cases. It isn't a terribly strongly worded criticism by any means and seems very fair to me.

Why not give it a rest, rewrite it, or wait for the arbitrator to show up? Starkrm 15:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Regarding the criticisms, you are covering ground we have already covered and have not agreed on.

Regarding Pauling: From the Wiki intro to Pauling he was "an American quantum chemist and biochemist. He was also acknowledged as a crystallographer, molecular biologist, and medical researcher. Pauling is widely regarded as the premier chemist of the twentieth century". That you feel it is appropriate to introduce him as an "unorthodox Nobel Laureate and alternative medicine advocate" would suggest to most people that you are attempting to ignore his major contributions to science and instead concentrate on an aspect of his career that many might question.

AWeishaupt has said that he will write a criticism. Hopefully it will include refs that meet Wiki's standards and be NPOV. Gandydancer 14:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• I feel I have been waited long enough for help with the criticism section. I have asked for help from Wiki three times and waited 5 days for AWeishaupt to write something as he/she said he/she would. I have rewritten it and hopefully everyone will be happy since I used all of Starkrm's sources.

Gandydancer 22:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

• I have again removed the word "wrongly". Certainly it is just common sense that one should not use a site that requires a fee to back up a statement. Furthermore, even if the site were available it is NOT for Wiki to decide who is right and who is wrong.

Gandydancer 22:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

It is actually not "common sense" or going along with Wikipedia's policies to only use sites that are not paid. Some of the best resources are either subscription-based or offline, and both can be used for Wikipedia sourcing. Please put the site here so that those who have access to the article can assess its merits for inclusion in the article. Obviously it's preferable to provide freely available online resources when they're available, but that's usually up to the newspaper or other publications' decision and business model, and it's not Wikipedia's direct concern whether that has been done or not.--Gloriamarie 22:29, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

• I have removed the remarks about Pauling. Going with the thought that they were appropriate I could have added " widely regarded as the primier chemist of the twentieth centure", but did not feel it appropriate.

Gandydancer 22:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

• What with the criticisms of this article almost as long as the information other than criticism, I have put the comment by the USC back. I have also deleted the word "debunked" which suggests that the work mentioned was "bunk" in the first place.

Gandydancer 11:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I apologise for perhaps not living up to my promise, I've been busy.

I think the criticisms section is reasonably fair and balanced as it stands now, and it's backed up by acceptable references, so I'm satisfied with it. 59.167.90.74 16:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Whoops, last comment was from me, I wasn't logged in. AWeishaupt 16:51, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

What was so wrong with Emcerlain's edit? That material looked quite relevant and well-researched to me, even if it's only a work in progress.

I guess that's just it though, it's a work in progress, and that's fair enough.AWeishaupt 16:01, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• I am going to remove the paragraph with the criticism of Storm and Smith since the references provided are problematic. The study sited to refute Storm and Smith actually used their figures for their study. And the other site used, Nuclearinfo by nuclear advocate Martin Sevior, appears to be supporting a deeply flawed study itself. Please see:

http://www.asen.org.au/OpportunitiesToWaste/?p=nuclearinfo

I quote:

The study challenges the widely quoted Van Leeuwan and Smith study*** put in reference*** on the energy costs associated with nuclear energy. When dealing with the issue of CO2 emissions, the website [Nuclearinfo] relies entirely on the reporting of a Swedish Energy company, Vattenfall (Sevior et al, 2006c) that focuses on nuclear and sequestration technologies (Vattenfall AB, 2006). The Report relies on Vattenfall's claim that its nuclear plants emit "less CO2 than any of its other energy production mechanisms" including solar, wind and biomass (Sevior et al, 2006c). The website does not reference any other study and thus raises many questions about the authority of such information, particularly given the commercial interests from the company promoting such data. 70.105.234.204 00:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's interesting.

The University of Sydney ISA group's report discusses in detail how the work of van Leeuwen and Smith is clearly flawed, and it includes a very significant literature review, and extensive references, on the subject. I know it's quite long, but perhaps you'd care to read it?

Sure, the Nuclear Info people tend to be supportive of nuclear, but they don't have any conflict of interest. Or if they do, would someone care to point it out?

The assumption that any scientist who supports nuclear energy is clearly some sort of shill or something is simply ludicrous.

It seems that they've gone off and done the research - keep in mind that this is a group of professional academic physicists - and come back with results that lead them to look favourably towards nuclear power. Their website certainly does discuss the challenges and concerns associated with nuclear energy.

The Vattenfall data is taken from independently audited, accredited environmental declarations that are maintained for Vattenfall's operations - they don't just post the figures and expect people to take them at face value.

The criticisms of SLS raised by Sevior et al. are independently backed up in the ISA report, and whilst the ISA report cites NuclearInfo, it is only one webpage from of a vast quantity of credible material cited.

The link you posted above is pretty clearly an anti-nuclear politically motivated page, in contrast to the peer-reviewed, credible scientific references I used.

Anyway, this isn't the place to have our own debate for or against nuclear power. AWeishaupt 14:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

There's some good material in the "Criticism" section at present, but the introduction to it is extremely biased -- it leads off with a rebuttal, essentially warning the reader not to believe anything that follows (she accuses the nuclear industry of *lies*! Of course they lie about her!).

I'm about to go in and edit that material, possibly I'll move it somewhere (someone took the trouble to type in a quote from Caldicott, I hate to just delete it). -- Doom (talk) 16:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• I am going to reverse the recent change in the article. To make the blanket statement that Caldicott answers criticism by saying that her critics are all liars is not supported by her statement on one radio show. As a matter of fact, Caldicott supports her opinion with facts and figures, which are, of course, open to dispute in the same way the ones that she refutes are.Gandydancer (talk) 13:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• I have removed mention of an award that someone had inserted as the second paragraph of the article. The award was given by The Peace Abby a "multifaith retreat center". The wording that was inserted was taken directly from the site: "Pacifist, physician, author and founder of the Women for Nuclear Disarmament (WAND) for her dynamic leadership in the worldwide disarmament movement". WAND is mentioned later in the article. I will insert "author" in the first paragraph. Gandydancer (talk) 10:40, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

• I believe a very good case that the criticism section should be completely removed can be made, as the criticisms cite blogs and clearly are biased POV, especially by those who wish to silence Caldicott. This has been part of a disturbing trend on Wikipedia in which right wing entries (such as the entry on Right-wing politics, or Ayn Rand) on persons or broad labels and subjects are whitewashed, paint a POV that is considerably revisionist (leaving out facts, events, names and pictures of individuals which might paint a critical or even negative yet still factual picture), and support the power structure (the state, those in power, those with a lot of money), while critics of the status quo, and their ideas, contain large "criticism" sections (see Noam Chomsky, for example). There are even cases where right wing organizations and movements made up of a small number of people are given large sections (such as that about Agorism), but anti-authoritarian and individualist left wing organizations and individual efforts are kept out of Wikipedia as "insignificant", or have small, token entries if any. We are told that one side must accept the "Warts and All" treatment, but not the other. This is not surprising in a country such as the United States - in which opinions are manipulated by those in power through the media and on the Internet through spin or omission, rather than outright force, but I do not believe it was what Wikipedia was intended for. Radical_Mallard 11:05 PM EST, 16 October, 2008

Radical Mallard, are you saying Caldicott shouldn't be criticized because she's "left wing" or is "anti-status quo"? Caldicott is quite free with personal attacks herself: I recall her going on about how stupid President Reagan was in an interview in the 1980's: she said he only gave mono-syllabic answers, and kept quoting from a Readers' Digest article, whilst she claimed his daughter (whom Caldicott described as "highly intelligent" - presumably because she agreed with Caldicott) kept telling Reagan he was "wrong" and that his own reports were telling him what Caldicott was claiming. Amazing that a daughter of the President (unnamed) had apparently read top secret DOD reports about an issue which Caldicott never mentioned! But hey, that's OK for her to say all this about a then sitting President on a television broadcast, but it's not OK to have a section to mention criticisms of HER! In the same program she went barking on about how diseases like AIDS "come and go" (really?) whilst "radiation" is "forever" and "the children" oh the children... Caldicott herself is not a scientist. She's a pediatrician. She clearly knows very little about physics if what she says in interviews really represent her state of knowledge. She got on the anti-nuclear bandwagon because she read Neville Shute's novel "On the Beach" and watched the original film version. In actual fact, the novel doesn't accurately describe the aftermath of a nuclear war at all. But she's still plugging it. Dr Caldicott is NOT a research scientist, but a political campaigner. Essentially a non-elected politician (she's been a member of political parties, founded political groupings, and even run in elections - don't pretend she isn't a politician of a sort), and her campaigns are promoted through highly emotional rhetoric and hysteria. The above mentioned website may not be "proof" that she "lies" but IS a source of the criticisms that are made of her. If anyone quoted physics papers to refute specific claims she's made in interviews or in her books, it would be dismissed as "original research". For the article to be NPOV it should surely make a reasonable mention of the fact that she has her critics, and not be some hagiography mentioning how prominent she is in the anti-nuclear movement, which used to be highly aligned with the peace movement (hence Linus Pauling's support for her). I am not talking about personal attacks, but criticisms of her political position and claims.

Needs criticism section

Considering Caldicott is not without controversy, this page warrants a criticism section by a knowledgeable person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gordonlighter (talk • contribs) 21:20, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Whilst WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, wikipedia tries not to create "constroversy" or "criticism" sections. It's an encyclopedia, and the good and the bad comes out in the facts, written in prose - not a "naughty" section. Timeshift (talk) 21:23, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Controversy over some of Dr. Caldicott's statements exists. It's not wrong for Wikipedia to describe that controversy in a separate section — call it what you will. For example, in a recent debate with George Monbiot, she stated, "Up to a million people have already died from Chernobyl..." I know of no evidence to support this huge number. ChrisWinter (talk) 22:39, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Controversy ideally needs to be integrated into the article and not all lumped into a separate section. The "up to a million" figure comes from Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment. Johnfos (talk) 02:16, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I prefer it be without a Criticism section rather than have a castrated one; that way the slightly aware reader is immediately tipped off to a valueless, calorie-free article rather rather than entertaining any hopes it'll be informaive at all. Caldicott has been at the center of a constellation of interconnected old-line communist front-groups since the days the Soviets (rather than George Soros) were writing the checks to fund them.--Froglich (talk) 05:28, 16 August 2013 (UTC)