Thursday, June 7, 2012

Letter to Incoming MIT President, Written by Cisco

Cisco published a copy of the letter s/he sent to the MIT Univ President about biased MIT research. I asked if I could re-post the letter. Permission was granted:

Cisco wrote at Enenews:
June 7, 2012

Susan Hockfield, PhD, President
Massachessets Institute of Technology

Dear Dr. Hockfield:

Good Day! I was very disappointed and shocked to read and hear about a recently published study, funded by DOE, announced May 21 in a MIT press release, "MIT awarded more than $2 million in NEUP grants, fellowships. ". . .[]

There’s considerable chatter gaining readership and comments on a number of green blogs and a few small newspapers. The discussion that’s taking place is about how flawed and bias the MIT research is, the remarkable compromised biological studies and conclusions; and, the very fact that MIT would participate in such an unscientifically produced piece of “research (?)”. I think the ongoing discussion will shortly become a national story. MIT's reputation is at stake.

Yesterday, Sue Prent of the Green Mountain Daily wrote about your study. Her writing follows:
MIT has released a study which, they say, suggests that populations need not be evacuated in the future, should another event like Fukushima take place!

That's right; long captive by the now-threatened nuclear industry, in whose future it is heavily invested, MIT has finally jumped the shark. Ignoring the large body of scientific evidence very much to the contrary, MIT constructed its own experiment, carefully designed to "prove" a thesis convenient to the industry: continued that low-dose radiation over long periods of exposure is essentially harmless.

In a single stroke, the MIT study attempts to overturn all existing science and eliminate a significant collateral cost from the nuclear balance sheet.

Are people concerned, in the aftermath of Fukushima, because evacuation plans almost everywhere have been found gravely wanting? A simple paper fix from MIT, based on junk science, allows the industry to maintain that exclusion zones aren't even necessary!

This isn't the first time MIT has been found to be exercising extreme bias to make nuclear look more affordable. In fact, the advocacy role of MIT on behalf of the industry is boldly apparent in this description of a research grant program:

"Scholarship for Nuclear Communications and Methods for Evaluation of Nuclear Project Acceptability" will develop a model to characterize the factors affecting social acceptance of nuclear projects by potential stakeholders. The nuclear enterprise has long faced difficulties in gaining broad social acceptance for success… Reliance upon public education efforts continues to be the main, and largely unsuccessful, tactic to achieve success…" continued

Ian Goddard’s 10 minute videodoc “MIT No-Evacuations Study Debunked" dissects portions of the research and appears to destroy the study design, the protocol, the model, and the study’s findings and conclusions. You should view it here as I'm sure you’ll be asked about it…

I look forward to your response.



No comments:

Post a Comment