Talk:Helen Caldicott

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)

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.

Gandydancer
 * 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.
 * 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)

Gandydancer 12:15, 7 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.


 * 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)

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/3mile-isle.html
 * That's good news. When I was thinking of trying to rewrite it I did find this fact sheet that I planned to use:

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)

Gandydancer 22:36, 22 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 22:45, 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.
 * 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)

Gandydancer 22:51, 22 June 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 11:10, 4 July 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.

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.161.78.193 (talk) 06:21, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

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 &mdash; 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)

Ref for New England J. Med.
H. Caldicott gave an interview for Jane Hutcheon (ABC TV). Caldicott mentioned being invited by the editor to submit an article to NEJM. It was supposedly published the day before the Three-Mile Island accident. An author search on the NEJM site fails to list an author of her name. There is a George Caldicott, circa 1920. Can some one provide a full cite for this paper?203.213.62.224 (talk) 07:05, 13 April 2014 (UTC)


 * The NEJM didn't publish the day before the incident at TMI. There was a publication the day after, but nothing by Caldicott was in it. Given that it's been over 35 years since then I can see how she might have been a little of with dates (although given how much of her live has been focused on this event it's a bit surprising) but I haven't been able to find any medical articles that she ever published in the NEJM. 49.180.121.226 (talk) 03:46, 14 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Unless it's really well hidden, I can't find any medical research by Caldicott. Other than being elected as a member of the Australian Paediatric Association in 1972 all of her publications and other mentions in literature relate to her work as an anti-nuclear activist rather than as a doctor. Of these, the closest that I've been able to find was a letter published in the Medical Journal of Australia in 1979 - Uranium: health risks from a nuclear power industry, The Medical Journal of Australia (1979, 1(10):454-456). This might have been published around the time of TMI, but I haven't been able to find an electronic copy to check. It's the wrong journal and not an article, but it still might be what she was talking about.  Nuclear balance (talk) 08:33, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Ditto re criticisms -AND- needs a "Written as Biased" notice.
This entire article either is or comes very close to being a biased "love-fest" in the respect that it seems to be written in a manner that favors her work or does not show ways in which she is in error or at least contested.

One example of competing information and/or debate can be seen at:


 * http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qaptvhky8IQ&index=7&list=PLKfir74hxWhPsAXSrCy--ORaxxbXdWnXK

Someone needs to post one of those Written as Biased notices, or something to that effect.

LP-mn (talk) 16:24, 24 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Nearly three years later, the article has gotten no better. If the article were about a passionate advocate of nuclear energy, these same Wikipedia editors would go out of their way to paint him or her as a crackpot. Caldicott has made rabidly provocative statements over the years, well documented in audio and video recordings, yet there is no mention of them here.  Once you hear what she has said, there is no way to take her seriously. — Quicksilver (Hydrargyrum)T @ 18:40, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

On the Beach
The novel was not published when Caldicott was 12 years old. According to Wikipedia it was published in 1957. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dynasteria (talk • contribs) 21:30, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

"Australian Radiation Service Chart" Presented by Dr. Caldicott
I've re-removed content sourced to a non-reliable source (a YouTube video posted just a couple days ago). Please provide sources compliant with Wikipedia's Reliable Sources and Biography of Living Person policies before adding information to the article. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 20:34, 4 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The latest revision you rejected did not cite the 2015-04-01 video, but had been updated to cite the 2014-10-18 master of the event in question. I don't know if this qualifies as "Original Work" since it is simply a video capture... there's no commentary contained other than Dr. Caldicott's own.


 * From that presentation she gave, I did note the following... (and apologies for me mangling Wikipedia formatting)...


 * In 2014, Physicians for Social Responsibility hosted Dr. Caldicott in Seattle, Washington. Dr. Caldicott presented a "Nuclear Fallout Map - Potential Fallout from Fukushima Reactor" she accredited to Australian Radiation Services and also stated that the events predicted in the 2011 diagram "had came to pass".


 * ...so in the latest edit I offered reference to a video showing exactly that.


 * Before we continue, can you confirm for me that at this point there is no issue? I'm thinking criteria NPOV, V, NOR and none strike me as a problem.


 * Moving on to how accurate that chart is...


 * In 2011, Australian Radiation Services had denied ever issuing such a diagram, saying "We wish to be clear that this information has not originated from ARS and as such distance ourselves from any such misinformation."Snopes - Nuclear Fallout Map not issued by ARS


 * ...is Snopes, in addressing the diagram, not considered a reliable source?


 * I think you probably understand what I'm trying to accomplish here, and I'd appreciate any guidance. Dr. Caldicott used a diagram in 2014 that had been debunked in 2011... I've shot footage of her using it in 2012, so this is probably part of her typical presentations on Fukushima. It is an important fact that she's using that diagram... particularly in 2014.


 * Sorry I opted to use re-submit commenting rather than "talk". Clicking "talk" led me very quickly to choice paralysis. In fact I'm not sure if this is even the correct location to be responding at all... maybe I was supposed to respond to this back on your own "talk" page.


 * gordonmcdowell 2015-04-04 21:00 (MST)


 * You are on the correct page for discussing this matter. I believe I do understand what you are trying to accomplish, perhaps a little more than described here (after having browsed through other YouTube videos uploaded by "Thorium Remix" or a name resembling your Wikipedia username). The video snippets have Caldicott sourcing the diagram to ARS on March 11, 2011 and also March 2000 (perhaps she misspoke?), and she describes it as "the potential fallout" and notes fallout eventually had come to pass, which doesn't seem controversial — and is a little different than "stated that the events predicted in the 2011 diagram 'had came to pass'". She then goes on to declare that ambient radiation in Seattle went up 40,000 times above normal (something apparently not indicated at all by the chart). Do I understand it is your intent to convey to readers that Caldicott is attributing a diagram to ARS while knowing they deny producing it? Do you have a reliable source that makes that assertion, or are you cobbling the pieces together yourself? Here are the problems with your recent edits to this WP:BLP. (1) The two YouTube videos you have used are from Ed Mays and "Thorium Remix", neither of which meet Wikipedia's High Quality Reliable Source requirements for use in a BLP. (2) The Snopes source, which says ARS denies originating the information, never says anything about Caldicott. There is no indication that she even knows about ARS's denial. Further, she appears to only use the chart to illustrate airborne radiation movement, while her most controversial assertions (40K times normal levels?) don't appear to refer to the chart at all. The diagram you describe as "debunked" (actually, Snopes only says that ARS says the information released under their logo is "information has not originated from ARS") is apparently still being used by a notable lecturer, so one would expect there would be reliable sources which explain why, right? Those are the secondary sources we need here to construct encyclopedic content regarding this matter. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 07:34, 5 April 2015 (UTC)


 * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qX-YU4nq-g&feature=youtu.be&t=22m24s "This was released by the Australian Radiation Service on March the 11th in March 2000 and this was the potential fallout which has actually come to pass. So here is Japan and here are you. And this is the airborne radiation. And for the first 2 days the wind was blowing from the west towards the east towards you, and the ambient radiation in Seattle went up 40,000 times above normal. Did you know that? And if you didn't know it why didn't you know it? And if you weren't told by the government why not because you elect the government to represent you, and not the corporations. Huh?"


 * Caldicott says "and -this- was the potential fallout which has actually come to pass". Then as the video switches from slide back to her delivering the presentation she's still using a pointer to indicate the diagram.


 * When she says "the ambient radiation in Seattle went up 40,000 times above normal" she stops using the pointer and addresses the audience. I have no idea if she's trying to restate the diagram with different units of measure, or if she's throwing out new numbers without citing a source. It seems implausible though that the potential fallout shown in the chart had come to pass, as that would have been fatal to a large number of people.


 * What is inaccurate, is what she's indicating with her pointer... the diagram... while she says "this was the potential fallout which has actually come to pass". I don't see how you can interpret her as only communicating "this diagram predicted there was gong to be fallout, and then Seattle did in fact receive fallout, just as predicted by this diagram the wind does in fact blow west to east."


 * My intent is not to convey to Wikipedia readers that Caldicott is attributing a diagram to ARS while knowing they deny producing it, because I can't know that to a Wikipedia standard. I'd like to convey that she's using a chart shown to be inaccurate since 2011, still, in 2014. And although I know she's done it more than once, I'm not personally in the habit of posting Caldicott lectures and would be inclined to turn what I'd have otherwise considered a historical video archive into Original Research by way of including commentary... such as GoddardsJournal did on YouTube.


 * Fortunately, Ed Mays archived the lecture and posted it to the public.


 * The term "published" is most commonly associated with text materials, either in traditional printed format or online. However, audio, video, and multimedia materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable party may also meet the necessary criteria to be considered reliable sources. Like text sources, media sources must be produced by a reliable third party and be properly cited. Additionally, an archived copy of the media must exist. It is convenient, but by no means necessary, for the archived copy to be accessible via the Internet.


 * Ed Mays archive is only a video recording of what took place in the lecture hall. The only edits are those announced with fancy-wipe between the clearly indicated end-of-lecture and beginning of Q&A. It isn't a narrative piece. It is just Caldicott, delivering her talk in as far as I can tell, the exact same manner in which she always does. Would 2 different video archives of unbroken lecture that were presented on different dates in which she shows the same diagram and says again that "this was the potential fallout which has actually come to pass" then be considered acceptable?


 * You didn't declare Snopes reliable or unreliable. I've contacted ARS for clarification on this matter. If they email me back and don't issue a public statement via URL then I don't see how it will help on this matter. So it would help to know if there's a Wikipedia-wide consensus on using Snopes as a source. I could not find it, if there is.


 * her most controversial assertions (40K times normal levels?) don't appear to refer to the chart at all


 * Dr. Helen Caldicott continually delivers "controversial assertions". I am attempting to clarify one "controversial assertion" on Wikipedia (that the diagram was an accurate prediction by ARS) not because it is more-or-less controversial than any other of the many she's made... I am updating her page because this topic was covered by Snopes. I initiated this because I believe Snopes to be NOR... and if Snopes isn't NOR then presumably ARS will be NOR (if they supply a public-facing response).


 * While I'm waiting on ARS, maybe you have a suggestion for me regarding how to take the a fact... that Dr. Helen Caldicott keeps presenting her ARS diagram... and that fact is documented many times on many different videos of her many presentations at many locations and on many dates... and help me understand how that fact can be made available to Wikipedia. Because no single "reliable" source is going to show her presenting that diagram. Reliable sources would not allow anyone to broadcast that diagram as being a confirmed prediction of 2011 events. However, taken together, multiple video accounts of Caldicott presenting that diagram must constitute a reliable record of the contents of her presentation on Fukushima. Non-narrative video accounts... captures of her lectures. I'd have thought a single lecture capture would suffice. Is there a reasonable number of non-narrative captures which can constitute reliability? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gordonmcdowell (talk • contribs) 12:44, 5 April 2015 (UTC)


 * To answer your most relevant question first, "...and help me understand how that fact can be made available to Wikipedia. Because no single "reliable" source is going to show her presenting that diagram." This dilemma you describe is at the crux of the objections to your recent edits, but is also self-answering as far as Wikipedia policy goes. If high-quality reliable sources haven't conveyed what you wish to convey, then it doesn't belong in a Wikipedia Biography of a Living Person. Adding information to BLPs isn't simply a matter of whether something is "factual", it is also governed by the significance and prevalence of that information in reliable sources. Pointing to a video clip from one source which doesn't have the required reputation for fact-checking and accuracy (neither Mays or the Thorium sources do) as proof she has used that chart, then pointing to another source (Snopes) as proof that ARS denies originating that chart, then synthesizing those together to state "that Caldicott asserts the diagram was an accurate prediction by ARS" when neither of the separate sources convey that, is inappropriate. And if no reliable source produced to date conveys this matter as being of significance, then it isn't proper content for a Wikipedia BLP either.


 * There are a couple other points to consider. You quoted above a guideline about using videos as sources; please note the operative words I've underlined: However, audio, video, and multimedia materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable party may also meet the necessary criteria to be considered reliable sources. Like text sources, media sources must be produced by a reliable third party and be properly cited. For the sake of argument, let's assume that we can find a copy of that lecture video from a reputable source. We still could not combine that with ARS's "distancing" itself from the diagram in order to have this article convey (or even imply) malfeasance on Caldicott's part; that would still need to be done by reliable sources. You mention "multiple video accounts of Caldicott presenting that diagram"; as a matter of personal curiosity, does she use precisely the same words and inflection when using that diagram at other lectures? Can you link to videos of those other lectures? It is not clear in the one lecture video produced so far that she is using the chart for anything other than graphic illustration. I'm also unpersuaded that her "came to pass" reference is about anything other than the fact that fallout occurred. In fact, she seems to contradict the statistical aspects of the chart (the 40K number; noting that the easterly winds were for only 2 days, etc.) It is for these very reasons that Wikipedia policy directs us to rely on third-party reliable sources to put information from these primary sources (videos) into context. Seeing how she uses the chart in other lectures would be interesting to me, even though it wouldn't help bring your proposed additions into WP:BLP compliance. ADDED: Here is a lecture from April 2012 where she briefly uses the image (at time mark 52:40), and while she doesn't attribute it to ARS, their logo is visible, and she makes the same 40K ambient radiation increase assertion. And she does actually reference the 3, 6 & 10 day designations on the diagram back then, but not the "rad" levels. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:16, 5 April 2015 (UTC)


 * re: "You didn't declare Snopes reliable or unreliable." Correct. I did not, because that is not really at issue here. I do know that as of March 15, ARS was distancing themselves from some "information" (see this snapshot of their old website), although the wording of their disclaimer is a little wishy-washy. No source is automatically deemed reliable 100% of the time by Wikipedia. If you wish to get input on whether a particular source is deemed reliable in a particular situation and for particular content, you would raise your question at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. (Note: there is also an archive search field there - just enter "Snopes" to review past discussions.) Be prepared to provide not only the Snopes link, but also the context in which it is to be used. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 17:54, 5 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Seeing if ARS is willing to clarify their disclaimer and pull it out of memory-hole. If/how they do that will impact how much time I spend indexing Caldicott's use of the not-ARS diagram. I'll give you a tally and URLs when I do, but indexing is a lower priority until I find reputable mention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.64.20.51 (talk) 10:54, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

C-SPAN in external links
Hello - Regarding this edit, if we want to avoid expanding the External links section, how about we remove the link for the In Depth interview, and replace it with the template ((C-SPAN|Helen Caldicott}}, which points to all of Caldicott's C-SPAN appearances. If there is any concern about the quality of this link, it leads to hours and hours of video of interviews with and presentations by Caldicott, and I encourage everyone to explore it.

Any reactions to this? If no concerns, I will make that change. KConWiki (talk) 22:58, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Helen Caldicott. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130603161914/http://www.capecodtoday.com/news/event/2012/03/28/anti-nuclear-activist-dr-helen-caldicott to http://www.capecodtoday.com/news/event/2012/03/28/anti-nuclear-activist-dr-helen-caldicott

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 17:21, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 17:34, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Helen Caldicott. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cbc.ca/passionateeyesunday/helenswar/index.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110705022413/http://www.fundacionideas.es/en to http://www.fundacionideas.es/en

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:26, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Hershey stuff...
OK, I've been working on this article for a few days. I've tried to get rid of some real spammy sounding stuff and am inclined to cut even more... I did today cut this:


 * Citing confidential memos, Caldicott says that the Hershey Foods Corporation was concerned about radiation levels in milk used in their products because of the proximity of Three Mile Island to its Pennsylvania factory. According to Caldicott, citing a 30 March 1979 study by the Pennsylvania State University, College of Engineering, radiation contaminants that fell on the Pennsylvania grass found their way into the milk of the local dairy cows. Caldicott noted this was contrary to the findings in the government official report released shortly after the Three Mile Island disaster. Caldicott disputes this report in her book, Nuclear Power is Not the Answer.

All things considered, is this really so important to this bio? Any feedback appreciated. Gandydancer (talk) 16:41, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Discussion about what should be in the article
(This discussion has been relocated from Gandydancer's user talk page)

Regarding her activist activities, she does make a large number of statements claiming things which are matters of fact within science. The problem is that what she claims is often not the same as a mainstream scientist would claim on the subject. Many of her statements are not compatible with the results of scientific experiments, I recall that one of the Wikipedia principles is that undue weight should not be given to fringe views. I hold the view that if she makes a claim we should consider how it compares with other literature. The other literature being based on real experiments and being peer reviewed should be trusted more than a claim made by Helen (Her claims are not normally ever subject to peer review). So I think we should mention and discuss opposing views. I hold the view that there should be no original work on wikipedia by the editors, so we should not use our own views on subjects, instead if someone else has published a good quality review on a topic we should use it instead.

I have looked at some of what she has written and the vast majority of her statements on radioactivity can be shown within a short time to be wrong. I know that she might be a hero to many people but we should consider her work in a critical and unbiased way rather than either just repeating it or agreeing blindly with it. We can also use the standard methods of established subjects to generate content. Comparing one work with the rest of the scientific literature is a standard method in science.

I also have to ask why you think an book review by Ian Fells in Nature is not significant due to the status of Ian Fells, I have checked and Ian Fells (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Fells) is a Prof of Energy Conversion at a University. Also the fact that it was published in one of the best scientific journals (Nature) also does add to the weight of the review. I think currently that the article about Helen is not NPOV it is currently an article which seems to praise her too much rather than looking at her work in a neutral and unbiased manner.Cadmium (talk) 18:57, 5 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi Cadmium, I agree that it appears that Caldicott does not appear to always use sound science for her claims. The conversation with Monbiot was, IMO, a good discussion of the problem and it does help to add some criticism to the article.  If you can find similar well-sourced discussions that specifically address Caldicott I think we could include them, however to just add differing opinions would not be appropriate in her bio.  Many bios in WP include opinions that differ with scientific authority, for example the many U.S. politicians that disagree with climate change as a result of human activity which is agreed to by 97% of climate scientists, but we don't explain how and why they are wrong in their articles.  In her bio we need to explain Caldicott's opinion on nuclear energy - if a person wants an unbiased opinion on the use of nuclear energy they can go to that specific article.  But I do think that the Monbiot quotes could be improved, for example, "In a reply Caldicott claimed that tritium is particularly dangerous compared with gamma" seems an odd summary of that source, IMO.  Gandydancer (talk) 15:54, 6 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi Gandydancer. I would like to discuss with you an inconsistency with in Wikipedia. If you look at Johan_Galtung and Daniele_Ganser two randomly chosen peace studies experts you will find sections on both people in which they ideas and conduct is subject to some form of discussion / criticism. I feel that if discussion of Helen's ideas and conduct on the page devoted to her is not permitted then the same standard should apply to the other two pages. I have checked and you have not edited the page about D. Ganser (at least in the last 150 edits) so it is clear that in the case of the two peace studies people vs Helen that you could never be accused of having a double standard. But I think that the issue should be considered of why on wikipedia why it is not OK to discuss Helen's views and statements while it is OK for someone to be critical of Gatung and/or Ganser. I would err on the side of allowing some discussion of Helen's ideas as long as the criticism is sourced to someone else's work or is the clear product of standard methods in science / medicine or another academic discipline.Cadmium (talk) 14:31, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * As I said, I believe that criticism would improve the article since she is controversial. On the other hand, reading the Nuclear power debate article it is clear that she would not be considered "fringe".  The articles that you point out use sources that directly address the individual and if you can find similar discussions for Caldicott that would be good.  I've looked and I haven't found anything.  BTW, the conversation is about Caldicott, not me - would you mind moving it to her page? Gandydancer (talk) 17:08, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Regarding the move of venue to the talk page for Helen, I think your request is perfectly reasonable. I will copy the discussion over to the talk page. I will include a comment to state that it has be relocated.Cadmium (talk) 18:53, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Helen Caldicott. 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/20150410172800/http://www.psr.org/chapters/washington/helen-caldicott-fukushimas.html to http://www.psr.org/chapters/washington/helen-caldicott-fukushimas.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110705022413/http://www.fundacionideas.es/en to http://www.fundacionideas.es/en
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927225319/http://www.big-picture.tv/index.php?id=30&cat=&a=52%2F to http://www.big-picture.tv/index.php?id=30&cat=&a=52%2F
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929123558/http://www.freespeech.org/videodb/index.php?action=detail&video_id=10315&browse=0 to http://www.freespeech.org/videodb/index.php?action=detail&video_id=10315&browse=0

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:05, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Helen Caldicott. 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/20071019214546/http://heyokamagazine.com/HEYOKA.4.ENVIRO.HelenCaldicott.htm to http://heyokamagazine.com/HEYOKA.4.ENVIRO.HelenCaldicott.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:02, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

NPOV
The article as it stands currently is not NPOV, one particular editor (Gandydancer) has on various occasions removed any criticism of Helen's ideas and claims. It is interesting to note that the persons who have been critical of Helen's ideas tend to be more notable than her when judged using h index. While they are not household names they are people who have made various contributions to their fields.Cadmium (talk) 09:22, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Please present evidence for calling me a biased editor or strike your edit. I have removed unacceptable bio material either because it was not well-sourced  or because the person that offered the opinion of her was not notable.  Please review our WP guidelines if you are unsure of what is expected of us when we write our bios.  Gandydancer (talk) 18:59, 22 September 2019 (UTC)


 * A bio should not be a page which either attacks a person or praises them blindly, I am sure that a person who claims to be an authority on a subject should have their ideas subject to some reasonable debate.

As you remove anything which is critical of Helen, I think it is reasonable to assume that you have a bias in favor of her. You have a history on the page about her of removing material which is critical of her. You normally justify it by claiming that the person who was critical of her is not a notable person. The thing is that all three people who I have cited have higher h indexs than Helen. The h index is a good measure of how important a person is as an intellectual.

I would like you to read the following wikipedia policy, to make your life a little more easy I am providing a copy below, it seems that you have a perferance for sources which fit your point of view. It does not matter how notable a person is in the general public's mind if they state something. It does not matter if a person is poorly known if they say that 2 + 2 = 4. It is still true. It states in the following policy that a peer reviewed source is considered to be better than a self published item from a person. Helen's public statements about herself and her books are not peer reviewed (they are examples of self publication or publication by a publishing house which will publish without peer review) while all the articles I cite in which people discuss her work are peer reviewed. Thus the peer reviewed matter should be considered to be more trustworthy. Also keep in mind that no libel is being added to the article, as the statements are true. To be libel a statement must be untrue, in almost all parts of the world the absolute defense against a libel action is to show that the statement which the person objects to is true.

I reason that if a household name such as Helen says that 2 + 2 = 5, and a series of less well known people state that 2 + 2 = 4 then the fact that Helen is a "household name" does not make the answer five.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable_sources

//== Reliable sources==

//===What counts as a reliable source===

The word "source" when citing sources on Wikipedia has three related meanings: All three can affect reliability.
 * The piece of work itself (the article, book)
 * The creator of the work (the writer, journalist)
 * The publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University Press)

Articles must be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Source material must have been, the definition of which for our purposes is "made available to the public in some form". Unpublished materials are not considered reliable. Use sources that directly support the material presented in an article and are appropriate to the claims made. The appropriateness of any source depends on the context. The best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments. The greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source. Be especially careful when sourcing content related to living people or medicine.

If available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources, such as in history, medicine, and science.

Editors may also use material from reliable non-academic sources, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications. Other reliable sources include:
 * University-level textbooks
 * Books published by respected publishing houses
 * Magazines
 * Journals
 * Mainstream newspapers

Editors may also use electronic media, subject to the same criteria. See details in Identifying reliable sources and Search engine test.

//===Newspaper and magazine blogs===

Several newspapers, magazines, and other news organizations host online columns they call blogs. These may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals, but use them with caution because blogs may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process. If a news organization publishes an opinion piece in a blog, attribute the statement to the writer, e.g. "Jane Smith wrote..." Never use as sources the blog comments that are left by readers. For personal or group blogs that are not reliable sources, see Self-published sources below.

Reliable sources noticeboard and guideline
To discuss the reliability of a specific source for a particular statement, consult the reliable sources noticeboard, which seeks to apply this policy to particular cases. For a guideline discussing the reliability of particular types of sources, see Reliable sources (WP:RS). In the case of inconsistency between this policy and the WP:RS guideline, or any other guideline related to sourcing, this policy has priority.

Cadmium (talk) 19:57, 22 September 2019 (UTC)


 * You don't need to copy the RS info on this page. As you know we expect only the best sources when we criticize a living person.  You are using cherry-picked statements written by a reletivly unknown author from a journal that publishes articles about leadership styles.  A review of the articles opens by saying:
 * "This article profiles two important leaders of the anti-nuclear weapons movement in the United States during the early 1980s. Helen Caldicott and Randall Forsberg were visionary, transformational leaders who crossed a variety of boundaries for the common good, and as such are prime exemplars of integrative leadership in action. Caldicott was a charismatic figure who used her status as physician and mother to rally a worldwide movement opposed to the ongoing proliferation of nuclear weapons and talk of “winnable” nuclear war."
 * Gandydancer (talk) 18:28, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

It is interesting that the text that you cited from the paper was from the abstract where the author is putting their opinion, the quote / paraphrase from the body of the text is from sources (people) who have had dealings with Helen directly. If you want to use the paper further then feel free, but keep in mind that the abstract is a summary of a paper which is often the authors thoughts on what is in the paper and why people should read it. I also find it shocking that you dismiss academics who have a far greater impact intellectually than Helen. She has a pathetic h index when compared with the academics who have commented on her. Maybe you should go and read what these academics have written about Helen before you pass judgement on them. Some of what they have written is free to the public to read.

Also you are falling into a trap, you have chosen to exclude or downplay sources because of where they were published. If you think about, the choice of a journal which is devoted to leadership studies is a good one for a paper which does consider interactions of the senior people in an antinuclear lobby group (people who are in leadership positions). I have to ask the question of "does it matter which peer reviewed journal it was published in ?". If I was to publish in a peer reviewed journal in maths a statement that "2+2=4", does it make it any less true if we are discussing the counting of bees ?

Also does it matter how well known an author is as a "household name", if A makes a statement which is backed up with sources and gets into a peer reviewed journal it is a more important thing for Wikipedia than a well known but deeply deluded / ignorant or stupid person does it make A's opinion on a topic important. Equally if B is a poorly known but a better advised, smarter person with a better knowledge of the topic then B is still a more trustworthy person. The Late Jade Goody is a household name in the UK, but her thoughts on UK geography are not more valid just because people have heard of her. I say poorly known geography expert who knows that Cambridge is north of London and Aberdeen is in Scotland is more right than Jade.Cadmium (talk) 08:46, 13 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I just read this edit (when the old links popped up below). Generally when an editor waits almost two weeks to post a reply they notify the editor that they are having a conversation with to be sure they are aware of the delay...  Gandydancer (talk) 16:42, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Sourcing
Critical information cherry-picked and based on one journal article has again been placed in this BLP article. This is NOT acceptable per WP policy. Furthermore, the same would be true if information would be cherry picked from, for example another peer reviewed article such as this one from the International Studies Quarterly The only way to use this sort of information would be to find a review of articles and present that finding. I'm again removing this problematic information. Gandydancer (talk) 16:29, 26 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Furthermore, according to BLP "If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out." I will again remove this information.  Gandydancer (talk) 00:16, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Book review removed
I have removed the lengthy book review by Ivan Eland. It was published at the Independent Institute where "Eland is Senior Fellow at the Independent Institute and Director of the Independent Institute's Center on Peace & Liberty." This think tank is not RS for a BLP and considering Eland's involvement in the source it is practically self-published. Gandydancer (talk) 10:53, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much for the work you are doing to clean up the entry; I’ll try to keep a bette eye on changes going forward to help out. Innisfree987 (talk) 11:45, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

POV
Gandydancer has made some errors when considering the origin of some of the discussion of Helen's ideas

1. Foreman is not a medical student, he is an associate prof who works on nuclear accident science, the name of the journal did include the words "medical student" however. I would respectfully suggest you read the sources that you choose to remove before you start to blank out content. 2. Much of Helen's work is not peer reviewed and is effectively self published 3. Helen makes a thing about male reproductive organs (testies) in her comments about things like uranium and plutonium, thus when she makes a claim about that part of the body when a peer reviewed paper shows that her claim is unlikely to be true then in the interests of keeping the article NPOC it should be mentioned 4. While a bio should not be used to attack a person, it should not pander to them and accept everything they say without any form of critical thinking. I would like to ask if you would apply the same standards to Helen's bio as you would to Donald Trump. If we were to apply the standards you seem to have for Helen to Donald then we would have to remove any content from his bio which is critical of him and his time in the whitehouse.Cadmium (talk) 16:06, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I have add a short commentary. Let me know if it's OK.  Gandydancer (talk) 18:47, 15 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I do not see a clear commentary on Halen's ideas, now I know that she has a thing about "male reproductive bits", consider

http://nuclearcrisis.org/interview/ http://www.helencaldicott.com/pdf/smh090729.pdf https://www.helencaldicott.com/chapter3.pdf http://peacemagazine.org/archive/v26n1p31.htm

Consider her own words

“In the ’70s I stopped uranium mining in Australia by telling union members about the effects of radiation on their testicles. Now in Australia things are grim. The temperature rose to 42 degrees this year, causing fires and dust storms. The country is surrounded by earthquake zones and has 85 million tons of uranium tailings.”

Now if the effects on these bits are a key plank in her argument and can be shown to be a bad argument the it should be pointed out.

For arguments sake if Donald Trump was to claim to be the most educated president of the USA ever and to have a PhD from the "Las Vegas University" (For arguments sake it does not exist), to have been the first person to market the lightbulb in the USA (Thomas Edison did that) and to have invented a water based economic computer. Then I argue that the bio on him should discuss the claim to have a PhD from a university which does not exist, discuss his claim to have brought the lightbulb to market and also point out the water based computer was invented at the LSE by Bill Phillips in the 1950s.

Helen keeps on making ad hominem attacks on people, she never seems to answer the questions of her critics and she has made a large number of statements which can be shown to be false. I strongly think you should restore the discussion of her work by experts and academics to the page.

Please do answer this simple "Yes/No" question, did you read the references which you removed from the page before you removed them or not ?

Cadmium (talk) 05:49, 16 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I read the ref that I offered. I'm not sure that it is RS but it seemed fair to me and I note that the reviewer is a respected person with a great deal of knowledge in the field.  Which other refs are you talking about?  Gandydancer (talk) 11:38, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Sorry I do not know which ref you were commenting on in the comment you made at 11:38 UTC Cadmium (talk) 18:58, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * This one:   Gandydancer (talk) 19:38, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I will go through it again. I think that we should distill down from the review the thoughts of Ivan.Cadmium (talk) 04:12, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Lets try to agree on a text in which we condense down the academics who have commented on what Helen has written.

For Eland

Helen Caldicott has been described by Ivan Eland as being critical of the Geroge W. Bush administration's policies on both nuclear bombs and antimissile defenses from a left wing point of view. Ivan states that she has made a series of compelling arguments against the nuclear weapon policies of both the Bush administration and other prior administrations. However he argues that her arguments are undermined by far fetched alarmist arguments, poor research and poor referencing of the work. Helen is reported as reasoning that the purpose of missile defense is to enable US military's interventions against countries which have weapons of mass destruction and the ability to deliver them with long ranged missiles. It is stated in Ivan's review that Helen expresses the view that right-wing think tanks acting on the behalf of corporations control the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, the World Trade Organization, and other major international organizations (pp. 25–26). Ivan states at times in the book Helen has bordered on the absurd attempting to consider the psychology of nuclear bomb designers, she is reported to argue that the inability of men to become pregnant and give birth to a child causes them to wish to destroy the world (page 16 in the book). However not all of the book is infected with this extreme text according to Ivan.

Please read the text and tell me what you think, is it a fair and reasonable condensation of Ivan's review of Helen's book,

For Foreman

Foreman is an interesting set of sources, you made a mistake. You cited as a reason for rejecting his view of Helen based on the fact that he is a student. He did write in a magazine / journal with the word "student" in the title of the publication. But it is interesting that Helen also wrote an article in the same magazine. Foreman is a university academic who has done research on nuclear accidents and has written review articles on nuclear accidents. He concentrates on the chemistry but has considered the reasoning of other people working in the field. The rather long text of the review is free to read as it is open access and has been published in a peer reviewed journal. On page 58 Foreman considered what Helen writes about radioactive cesium, He takes the five claims that Helen makes about Cs137. He agrees only with one and argues a case that the others are false or misleading over the next few pages (unto 61). He presents evidence that Helen has been misquoting sources in the literature, this is some ways is Helen's cryptonite.

I have yet to write a text which distills Foreman's treatment of Helen's book

On page 80 he then considers what Helen has written about plutonium. Again he manages to pick a lot of holes in what Helen has written about plutonium. This does put a dent in Helen's claims to be an expert in the field. I note that wikipedia wants to use secondary sources rather than primary ones. So when dealing with her intellectual output on nuclear matters the secondary sources of Eland and Foreman are important. The one by Foreman was peer reviewed which adds to its weight. I am not sure about the review process for Eland's book review. What do you think of the two sources that I discuss, please have a read of the parts of the Foreman review and then get back to me.Cadmium (talk) 16:50, 29 May 2021 (UTC)