Richard Katz wrote that Wing's study was not robust because it was dismissed by the judge, but failed to acknowledge that there is a difference between having to meet standards to be accepted as evidence in court on the one hand, and the judge's decision on the other.
See Wings' (2003) own account:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1241729/pdf
/ehp0111-001809.pdf

Yes, the study was submitted as evidence for citizens in a suit against big nuclear. No, it is not analogous to doctors being paid by big-pharma to write op-eds for drugs they can sell. The onus is on Katz to show that the methodology was skewed due to financial interests rather than just insinuate it.

Katz wrote, "It was admitted in court not because it was robust, but because lawyers launched a class action lawsuit and hired Dr. Wing to do a study to support their case". No. Just because something is part of a lawsuit does not mean that it will be admitted as evidence.

The original industry funded Columbia study was under a court order which restricted estimates of radiation output and subjected dosimetry findings to approval from industry lawyers. Not something which Richard Katz mentioned. Moreover, the "other scientists" whom Katz cited as critical of Wing et. al. were in fact the scientists involved in the original study not, as Katz implied, a disinterested third party. That does not invalidate them, but Katz thus holds me to standards of disclosure to which he himself does not adhere.

But note I did not accuse him of trying to cover things up. This is supposed to be a place for quick email exchanges to provide food for thought, not encyclopaedic accounts.

To quote from the PBS source Katz provided:

"The record presently before the court does not support the fundamental assumption made by Dr. Wing -- that doses were significantly higher than originally estimated. In the absence of this assumption, Dr. Wing himself admits that he would be unable to make a causal interpretation based upon his findings."

Wing et. al. did not accept the assumption of the low radiation output asserted by the authorities. They went on the hypothesis that the radiation output may have been higher. The study was rejected because they could not show that the radiation releases were higher than the government had said and Hatch et.al. had assumed.
That does not mean, as Katz argues, that the radiation releases were not higher than the government had said and Hatch et. al. had assumed and therefore the study is worthless, it just means that they could not show that the amount of releases was higher.

If you believe the government's claims, then fine.

If not, like me, then the Wing et. al. study should not be dismissed. Arnie Gundersen (more on him below) has argued that the releases were higher:

http://www.tmia.com/march26

However, all this is a digression because the Wing et.
al. study is a red herring which does not go to the 'heart of my argument' for two simple reasons.

1) I accepted Richard Katz's comment that "argues" is better than "shows". Thus, I accept that Wing et. al.
may be wrong. I just cannot assume it is wrong. Katz fails to acknowledge that fact and persists in arguing as if I hadn't, again quoting 'shows' rather than adding the amendment 'argues'. To acknowledge that I had accepted 'argues' would nullify his position.

2) I was making a single point, namely the problem of population density, and used the Wing study to illustrate that point. That is the 'heart of the argument' not the promotion of any fixed 'alarmist scenario'. I was not making a categorical prediction.
As I concluded, "In short, nobody really knows. Least of all me. So I'm with Nishio Masamichi, Director of the Hokkaido Cancer Centre, who stated that one should proceed on the basis of 'we don't know so we must assume that it is dangerous'. I hope he is wrong, but am intrigued by how radioactive material normally deemed 'hazardous' suddenly becomes 'safe' whenever there is an accident at a nuclear plant." Not something Katz quoted; nor did he quote, "So how many people were exposed to how much radiation from Fukushima? No-one knows".

Regarding Fukushima, and my sole point, even Dr.
Brenner, whom Richard Katz approves of, came up with a possible 75,000 cancers by Katz's own calculation. A number bigger than the 60,000 I also gave, but which Katz again omitted from his quotation of me, even though it was the next sentence in the passage he did quote. He also omitted the preceding sentence to his quote, namely, "And, population is an issue because a small proportional increase represents a large absolute increase, as Yasutomi Ayumu (Tokyo University) has pointed out.' The 'rough example' I was making was clearly an example of that i.e. 'a small proportional increase represents a large absolute increase'. Not an example that 10% must hold true for Fukushima.

Katz thus proved my sole point for me: a small proportional increase may still represent a large absolute number. He also did so by not using Wing, thus further demonstrating that Wing cannot possibly be central to 'the heart of my argument' as Katz claims.

I am entitled to use a study I deem valuable in the absence of persuasive falsification without being accused of 'alarmism'. Even if persuasively falsified, that would still not justify the tag 'alarmist', for that term implies a disingenuous motivation. The charge of 'alarmism' assumes both that the study is wrong and that I know it.

He also accused me of "suggesting the possibility of a few hundred thousand extra deaths". I did not. I suggested the possibility of a few hundred thousand extra cancers. An important distinction which Katz ignored. He also holds that tens of thousands of cancers is not 'alarmism' whereas hundreds of thousands is (cf. arbitrary value judgement).

Katz then moved on to attack me further through attempting to discredit another source I gave, namely Fairewinds.

On that site, Arnie Gundersen does indeed predict one million cancers. As Katz should know, that piece was uploaded on March 12th. My original post was written on March 7th.

Gundersen has been providing excellent analysis on the technology of what has been happening at the Fukushima plant. His early conclusions have been subsequently verified as information has finally come to light. I fully accept he is not an expert on radiation and health, or an epidemiologist. But his cancer prediction, accurate or not, I do not know, does not alter the credibility of his technical analyses of the Fukushima plant to which I was referring.

Finally, Katz wrote, "To take one last example [of the sensationalism, lies and distortions which I peddle] PW states.....Now we're in my field of economics". But Katz had in fact moved back in time to dig up the first source I gave in my original post, Prof Takano. He thus lumps him and thus me in with the 'anti-nuke crowd' who 'deal in sensationalism'. Being 'anti-nuke' does not mean you deal in sensationalism. A researcher may be anti-malaria. That does not prevent them from doing good science. Moreover, someone may be anti-something precisely as a result of good research.

I shall not therefore be responding on this issue further because a) Richard Katz has verified my point in an attempt at refutation, and b) is arguing in bad faith.

I do, therefore, again urge everyone to read my original post, and my response to Katz's criticism in which I accept "argues" rather than "shows".

You can then make up your own mind.

Sincerely,
Piers