Dr. John Gofman

 

A Brief Summary Concerning the Scientific Contributions
of John W. Gofman, M.D., Ph.D.

John William Gofman, M.D., Ph.D., an eminent scientist in the field of lipoproteins, cholesterol and heart disease, and in the field of the health effects of radiation, died August 15th, 2007 at his home in San Francisco from the consequences of severe aortic heart valve disease. He was 88.

Dr. Gofman was professor emeritus of Molecular and Cell Biology at the University of California at Berkeley. He did his undergraduate work at Oberlin College, received a Ph.D. in nuclear chemistry at the University of California, Berkeley, where he co-discovered several nuclear isotopes, and then received his M.D. from the University of California Medical School in San Francisco, where the faculty and his classmates selected him for the Gold Headed Cane Award, for personifying the “qualities of a true physician.”

Dr Gofman’s first major scientific medical contribution was his discovery, in the early 1950s, of the various categories of blood lipoproteins (the “LDL” or “bad cholesterol” and “HDL” or “good cholesterol, etc.) which are the major focus of current therapies in the medical prevention of heart attacks and strokes. Dr. Gofman and his research group at U.C. Berkeley developed the first method for isolating the various lipoproteins from blood and proceeded to demonstrate that genetic and/or dietary elevations in certain classes of lipoproteins were causative of atherosclerosis or “hardening of the arteries.”

He authored several books on the subject, “What We Do Know About Heart Attacks” in 1957, and “Coronary Heart Disease” in 1959, and co-authored “Dietary Prevention and Treatment of Heart Disease” in 1958. His wife, Helen Gofman, M.D., co-authored the first “Low Fat, Low Cholesterol Cookbook” for dietary prevention of heart disease in 1951. As with many new scientific breakthroughs, his work was quite controversial at first and some of his assertions were branded as “the Gofman heresy”.

By 1965, the furor had largely dissipated, and the American Heart Association honored Dr. Gofman with the prestigious Lyman Duff Lectureship. In 1972, he shared the Stouffer Prize, citing his “pioneering work on the isolation, characterization and measurement of plasma lipoproteins, and on their relationship to arteriosclerosis. His methods and concepts have profoundly stimulated and influenced further research on the cause, treatment, and prevention of arteriosclerosis.”

For the next thirty years, that he performed such seminal work in this field was largely forgotten, until recently. However, in 2004, the Journal of Lipid Research, described in some detail Dr. Gofman’s work and concluded: “In a 5- or 6-year period beginning in 1949, Gofman and his collaborators turned out a prodigious amount of new information about the lipoproteins in human plasma, their metabolism, and their correlation with atherosclerosis…The impact of Gofman’s work on the field was of great and lasting importance.”

Just three months ago, in May 2007, the Journal of Clinical Lipidology re-published Dr. Gofman’s classic 1955 paper, “The Serum Lipoprotein Transport System in Health, Metabolic Disorders, Atherosclerosis, and Coronary Artery Disease,” and W. Virgil Brown, M.D, the Editor-in-Chief, introduced the paper as “both a scientific tour de force and an historically important presentation of concepts that underpin our field…[Gofman] not only discovered relationships previously unknown but defined important questions that remain unanswered even today… [Many of his findings] were rediscovered later without credit to this work…Once you have finished this paper…you will understand why the name of ‘Father of Clinical Lipidology’ is fitting.”

Dr. Gofman’s second area major scientific contribution was in the field of the health effects of radiation, primarily focused on the risks of cancer associated with the environmental and medical exposure of the public to radiation. In 1963, at the height of the furor over radioactive “fallout” from nuclear weapons testing, he was urged by Atomic Energy Commissioner Dr. Glenn Seaborg (who had been his Ph.D. Advisor) to develop and direct a biomedical division at the Livermore National [Weapons] Laboratory, to investigate the health consequences of exposure to ionizing radiation. Suspicious that a cover-up was wanted, Dr. Gofman warned all the Commissioners that he would tell the public whatever he learned, and he was assured that they would not interfere.

When, in 1969, he and his colleague, Arthur Tamplin, determined that mounting evidence showed that the risk of cancer from radiation exposure was far greater than the estimates being used to set standards of public exposure, he presented their findings as an invited speaker on “Low Dose Radiation and Cancer” at the Symposium on Nuclear Science hosted by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, and he advocated that the legally permissible dose to the public from nuclear pollutants should be reduced “by at least a factor of ten.”

This did not sit at all well with numerous powerful forces, both in the government with its past and future nuclear weapons testing programs and its peaceful nuclear programs and with private industry which was on the verge of a major expansion of nuclear power generation.

At the Livermore Lab, he was told that Edward Teller regarded him as “the enemy within,” for his opposition to Project Plowshare, a plan already in the testing phase to detonate many hundred nuclear explosives to blast harbors, canals, and liberate (radioactive) natural gas from under the Rocky Mountains. Dr. Gofman referred to Plowshare as “biological insanity.”

He and Dr. Tamplin also concluded that the near perfection of containment of radioactive materials required by a major dependence upon nuclear power, from the mining and processing of nuclear fuel, operation of reactors, transport of new and used fuel, reprocessing of fuel, and storage of wastes for thousands of years was so unlikely due to engineering errors, operator errors, accidents, natural disasters and terrorism, that a modest 5-year moratorium on the licensing of nuclear power plants in the USA should be adopted while the issues were further debated.

Before the end of January 1970, the AEC, Congress’s Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, and the nuclear power industry had mobilized to denounce their work, but they were unsuccessful in silencing them.

He and Dr.Tamplin continued to publish numerous scientific papers, published several books, including “Poisoned Power: The Case against Nuclear Power Plants” in 1971, and testified before a number of congressional committees on the subject. After being pressured out of their positions at the Livermore Lab, Dr. Gofman returned to his full professorship at U.C. Berkeley, but despite his prestigious scientific credentials, found himself unable to secure funding for any research, even outside the issue of radiation and health. He therefore took an early retirement and devoted the rest of his life to researching and writing in the field of radiation and human health as the unpaid chairman of the Committee for Nuclear Responsibility.

The subsequent near melt-down of the power reactor at Three Mile Island and the melt-down and explosion of the Chernobyl Reactor, and the ongoing problems of achieving storage of nuclear waste, are among many confirmations of all of the concerns he and Tamplin raised about dependence on nuclear power. Recently, he was very concerned about the current enthusiasm for revival of nuclear power because he considered it to be a misguided solution to greenhouse gases and global warming.

In 1979, he and Dr. K. Z. Morgan were key expert witnesses for the famous lawyer, Gerry Spence in the Karen Silkwood trial. The judge in that trial later wrote, “Reviewing in my own mind the many excellent experts in areas of human endeavor that I have heard during my twenty-four years on the federal trial bench, I believe these two gentlemen are among the most impressive, articulate, honest, and knowledgeable expert witnesses in their respective fields that I have had the privilege to hear and observe.”

In 1984, he and Dr. K. Z. Morgan were key expert witnesses for the landmark Utah Fallout Trial (a class-action by people who had been exposed to radioactive fallout from the Nevada Test Site and later developed cancer). The judge in that trial later wrote, “It appeared to me at trial that each was a scientist in the best of senses. Each had a high regard for truth. Each was gifted, knowledgeable, and articulate. Equally impressive to me as their intellectual capacity and depth of knowledge, was what appeared to me to be their selfless motivation --- a genuine concern for people. I admired that. I still do. In crafting my opinion, I relied greatly on their testimony, their knowledge, their writings, their expertise.”

In the latter part of his career, his increasing understanding of the carcinogenic effect of radiation led him to focus on the threat from the largest exposure of the public to radiation, namely medical and dental diagnostic x-rays. He addressed these issues in a series of scientific books, including “Radiation and Human Health,” “X-rays: Health Effects of Common Exams,” “Radiation-Induced Cancer from Low Dose Exposure,” “Preventing Breast Cancer, The Story of a Major Proven , Preventable Cause of This Disease,” and “Radiation from Medical Procedures in the Pathogenesis of Cancer and Ischemic Heart Disease.”

These highly technical works addressed in detail his five most serious related concerns.

First, that for a number of reasons, the official committees (BEIR and UNSCEAR) which evaluate the health consequences from permissible radiation exposure of the public, were significantly underestimating the carcinogenic effect of medical radiation exposure. These bodies have steadily changed their estimates closer and closer to his own.

His second major concern was the persistent reliance among numerous people in the radiation health field and among physicians and radiologists on the concept of a “safe threshold dose” below which radiation would not cause cancer or harmful genetic mutations. In 1990, he published an analysis showing “by any reasonable standard of biomedical proof” that no exposure to ionizing radiation is risk-free with respect to DNA mutations that can lead to cancer and other genetic disease. Within three years, the various official radiation committees began gradually but openly to publish the same conclusion (with no acknowledgement of his previous analysis). The threshold concept has been officially discredited by standard-setting committees as being completely unsupported, but remains a common concept in the medical community.

His third major concern was the current burgeoning use of medical x-rays, especially of prolonged fluoroscopies (as used in coronary angiograms and putting in coronary stents) and of CT scans, sometimes for dubious indications.

His fourth major concern was the wide range of doses of radiation given for the same procedure to get the same information. It has been shown that this can vary 100 fold from one institution to another.

He was not at all opposed to x-ray examinations as extremely beneficial diagnostic and therapeutic tools of medicine, but he was very concerned about excessive doses and excessive numbers of procedures in a profession among which many still cling to the concept that these levels of exposure are “safe.” He felt much gratification during his last years by increasing efforts in radiology to reduce unnecessarily high x-ray doses from CT scans and fluoroscopy.

His last major concern, which recently brought him full circle to his earlier research in heart disease, was evidence, presented in his last book, suggesting that radiation exposure may play a role in the development of atherosclerotic heart disease, a concept that is becoming an increasing concern among cardiologists.

Dr. Gofman died with the satisfaction that his early research in lipoproteins has become the accepted basis of current medical therapy of atherosclerotic vascular disease, America’s leading cause of death. He was confident that, with time, his warnings about the dangers of x-ray exposure will reduce the future incidence of the second leading cause of death, cancer.

Dr. Gofman is survived by his only child, John David Gofman, M.D., his only niece, Diane (Mrs. William) Ehrlich, his only living first cousin, Phil Perloff, M.D., and by his long term co-worker, friend, and (ultimately) caregiver, Egan O’Connor. His wife, Helen Fahl Gofman, M.D., whom he met when they were students at Oberlin College, died at their home in 2004 from confirmed Alzheimer’s Disease.

 

THE DEATH AND LIFE OF JOHN W. GOFMAN, M.D., PH.D.
Additional Details and Documentation. August 2007.

1. Plasma Lipoproteins and Coronary Artery Disease: From Heresy to Honor, p1
2. Ionizing Radiation: “Celebrity” Scientist Again, p2
3. Some Gofman Milestones in the “Radiation and Nuclear Controversies,” p3
4. Some of Dr. Gofman’s Own Comments on Those Battles and His Motives, p10
5. Possible Impacts from his Scholarly Books, p14
6. Did Dr. Gofman Think His Life’s Work Made a Difference? p15
7. Man with a Grateful Heart, p16

John William Gofman, M.D., Ph.D., professor emeritus of Molecular and Cell Biology at the University of California, Berkeley, died August 15th at his home in San Francisco a month short of his 89th birthday, from the consequences of severe aortic stenosis. In his varied professional life, he made notable contributions in several fields, passing through two “celebrity” periods.

A good deal of Dr. Gofman’s life narrative (including his work on the first atomic bombs, and including his motivations when he challenged the “peaceful atom”) is told in his own colorful words during a long “Oral History” (online, the sixth entry on the first page, if one Googles “John W. Gofman”). That interview was conducted in December 2004 under the auspices of the Office of Human Radiation Experiments of the U.S. Department of Energy. It ends with a 1995 addendum, “Message from Dr. Gofman.”

A one-page summary of his history, from his 1999 book, is available online at www.ratical.org/radiation/CNR/RMP/AboutAuthor.html. It includes a 1999 shapshot, in the public domain. A 1979 photo, taken by Egan O’Connor and also in the public domain, is available at the bottom of www.ratical.org/radiation/CNR/JWGcv.html, and a much better quality of the same photo is available electronically from Prof. Henry Blackburn, University of Minnesota Dept. of Epidemiology. His Email is Blackburn@epi.umn.edu . His home-office telephone is 1-763-377-0304. His University office telephone is 1-612-626-9396.

In the following narrative, inserts like “(Ref)” mean that Ms. Egan O’Connor can supply the documentation and that she has been too busy since the death to have typed the reference list. She can be reached for inquiries at eganoc@hotmail.com or by telephone in San Francisco at the Committee for Nuclear Responsibility, 1-415-664-2913.

1. Plasma Lipoproteins and Coronary Artery Disease: From Heresy to Honor

The first “celebrity” period occurred as a pioneer at U.C. Berkeley’s Donner Laboratory in heart disease research. The work in 1949-1956 elucidated the “giant molecules” now famous as low-density lipoproteins (LDL), intermediate-density lipoproteins (IDL), very low-density lipoproteins (VLDL) and high-density lipoproteins (HDL). Great excitement ensued, even in the popular press (REFS), over this apparent breakthrough in understanding a major killer, coronary artery disease. As usual, controversy soon raged among the experts. Which kind of measurements predicted heart attacks best? Were certain lipoproteins really causal? And if so, which ones were most dangerous? And which kinds of diets should be recommended to reduce coronary artery disease?. Dr. Gofman was in the thick of it, and “the Gofman heresy” was a topic at many a medical meeting (Ref).

By 1965, the furor had dissipated somewhat, and the American Heart Association honored Dr. Gofman with the Lyman Duff Lectureship, published in 1966 (REF).

In 1972, he shared the Stouffer Prize for research in combating arteriosclerosis. The prize committee, chaired by Professor Ulf S. von Euler, former chairman of the Nobel Prize Committee for Physiology and Medicine, cited Dr. Gofman “for pioneering work on the isolation, characterization and measurement of plasma lipoproteins, and on their relationship to arteriosclerosis. His methods and concepts have profoundly stimulated and influenced further research on the cause, treatment, and prevention of arteriosclerosis.”

In 2004, the Journal of Lipid Research, Volume 45, described in some detail Dr. Gofman’s work and concluded: “In a 5- or 6-year period beginning in 1949, Gofman and his collaborators turned out a prodigious amount of new information about the lipoproteins in human plasma, their metabolism, and their correlation with atherosclerosis” (p.1591). “The impact of Gofman’s work on the field was of great and lasting importance” (p.1592).

In May 2007, the Journal of Clinical Lipidology re-published his classic 1955 paper and labeled Dr. Gofman as “The Father of Clinical Lipidology” (ref). W. Virgil Brown, M.D, the Editor-in-Chief of the JCL, introduced the paper as “both a scientific tour de force and an historically important presentation of concepts that underpin our field…[Gofman] not only discovered relationships previously unknown but defined important questions that remain unanswered even today… [Many of his findings] were rediscovered later without credit to this work… Once you have finished this paper … you will understand why the name of ‘Father of Clinical Lipidology’ is fitting” (p.98).

2. Ionizing Radiation: “Celebrity” Scientist Again

Meanwhile, 44 years earlier, a decision in 1963 by Dr. Gofman resulted, not by intent, in his second period as a “celebrity” scientist. In 1963, at the height of the furor over radioactive “fallout” from nuclear weapons testing, he was urged by Atomic Energy Commissioner Dr. Glenn T. Seaborg (who had been his Ph.D. Advisor) to develop and direct a biomedical division at the Livermore National [Weapons] Laboratory, to investigate the health consequences of exposure to ionizing radiation. Suspicious that a cover-up was wanted, Dr. Gofman warned all the Commissioners that he would tell the public whatever he learned, and he was assured that they would not interfere. During what he later referred to as “a lapse of cerebration” (REF Nuclear Witnesses p.88), he accepted the post because of its tempting first-rate lab and computer facilities for studying the relationship between chromosomal abnormalities and cancer, which were his new interests.

When, in 1969, he and his colleague, Arthur Tamplin, determined that mounting evidence showed that the risk of cancer from radiation exposure was far greater than the estimates being used to set standards of public exposure, all hell broke loose on October 29, 1969, when he did indeed “go public” as an invited speaker on “Low Dose Radiation and Cancer” at the Symposium on Nuclear Science hosted by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineering. There, Dr. Gofman reported that the existing evidence (accumulating but still sparse) warned that ionizing radiation (including natural background radiation and medical x-rays) was a far more powerful carcinogen and mutagen than previously assumed. As a result, he advocated that the legally permissible dose to the public from nuclear pollutants should be reduced “by at least a factor of ten” (Ref p.5).

Not surprisingly, his scientific findings and his willingness to issue public warnings about their implications upset many powerful interests. At the Livermore Lab, he was told that Edward Teller regarded him as “the enemy within,” for his opposition to Project Plowshare, a plan already in the testing phase to detonate many hundred nuclear explosives to blast harbors, canals, and liberate (radioactive) natural gas from under the Rocky Mountains. Dr. Gofman referred to Plowshare as “biological insanity.” Before the end of January 1970, the AEC, Congress’s Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, and the nuclear power industry had mobilized to denounce their work, but they were unsuccessful in silencing them. Indeed, respect for his continuous work grew continuously until his death. (Ref the Online Oral History & Nucl Witnesses p96, pp99-100, p102).
3. Some Gofman Milestones in the “Radiation and Nuclear Controversies”

1969-1970: Prodigious Number of Papers for two Congressional Committees
Between October 29, 1969 and November 12, 1970, Dr. Gofman and his Livermore colleague, Dr. Arthur R. Tamplin, produced a series of 24 epidemiologic analytical papers and proposals that came to be known as “the G-T series” at the unhappy Livermore Lab, which had to reproduce them because they were all submitted to Congress as backup for their testimonies before the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy and Senate Committee on Public Works (Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution). Thus the Congress had to publish them too, and they rapidly entered wide circulation. (Ref list in his book “Irrevy”).

Formation of the Committee for Nuclear Responsibility
In 1971, Dr. Gofman became chairman (unpaid) of the newly formed nonprofit research and educational Committee for Nuclear Responsibility (CNR). Joining him on its Board at that time were Prof. Lewis Mumford, and Nobel Laureates Linus Pauling, Harold Urey, and George Wald. (Dr. Gofman happened to outlive them all by many years.) A great many of his CNR publications and four of his books are hosted online by www.ratical.org/radiation/CNR/.

1971: The Book, “Poisoned Power,” online at www.ratical.org/radiation/CNR/PP/
Also in 1971, he and his colleague Dr. Arthur R. Tamplin (deceased in 2007) advocated a 90% reduction in the legally permissible radiation dose from nuclear pollution and a modest 5-year moratorium on the licensing of nuclear power plants in the USA. Dr. Gofman had been able to calculate from first principles of nuclear fission that each operating plant would inevitably produce as much long-lived radioactive poison every year as the detonation of 1,000 Hiroshima-sized atomic bombs REF. Before making the nation dependent on such machines, he and Dr. Tamplin argued the necessity of assuring that such poisons could be contained and isolated with near perfection for the required many hundreds or thousands of years, depending upon the isotope. They very much doubted it (Introduction, p.22). So did the insurance industry , which voted “no confidence” in nuclear power (Introduction, p.31).

Their 1971 book, “Poisoned Power: The Case against Nuclear Power Plants,” allegedly inspired the script for the film, “The China Syndrome,” and without doubt, the book inspired many citizens to oppose plans for licensing as quickly as possible approximately 1,000 nuclear power plants in the USA (a vision called “the plutonium economy” by its chief enthusiast, Dr. Seaborg, who was a co-discoverer of plutonium). In reality, fewer than 150 civilian nuclear power plants have operated in the U.S. The book was published also in Britain in 1973, with a foreword by Lord Ritchie-Calder (Ref), and re-published in the U.S. in 1979 with a foreword by U.S. Senator Mike Gravel (Ref).

1972: Fuel Reprocessing; Another Helpful Nobelist; A Sort of Victory
The fissioning of uranium inevitably produces a by-product named plutonium --- itself a fissile substance ideal for producing energy and nuclear bombs. Therefore, at the time, many nuclear enthusiasts advocated recovery of such plutonium from used civilian nuclear fuel rods.

In January 1972, Dr. Gofman testified before the Nuclear Study Committee of the South Carolina Legislature, explaining the many reasons why Allied Chemical and Gulf Nuclear’s proposed Barnwell Nuclear Fuel Reprocessing Plant --- a necessary facility for any plutonium economy --- was a very bad idea for the corporations, for South Carolina, and for the east coast (Ref). He described the likely health consequences and economic cost if various fractions of the future plant’s radioactive inventory were to escape by accident. He challenged Allied-Gulf Nuclear to demonstrate its confidence that the chance of any such accident would be ridiculously small, by accepting the full financial liability for such. If not, what confidence should the legislators have?

Dr. Gofman had been one of the first humans in 1943 ever to extract plutonium from irradiated uranium (see Part 2 of this document, especially the patents). He knew that putting radioactive fission products into solution to extract the plutonium would be the step where radioactive poisons would be most likely to escape into the biosphere. Moreover, he knew that liberating great quantities of plutonium from the radioactive fuel rods would eventually lead to siphoning some share of it by theft into the black market, for sale to persons interested in making their own atomic bombs. All this he told to the startled legislators. Others joined the opposition to Barnwell, and the plant never went into its planned operations.

1972 also produced a new supporter for Dr. Gofman’s views: Dr. Hannes Alfven, Nobel Laureate in Physics. He wrote in the May issue of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists: “Fission energy is safe only if a number of critical devices work as they should, if a number of people in key positions follow all their instructions, if there is no sabotage, no hijacking of transports, if no reactor fuel processing plant or reprocessing plant or repository anywhere in the world is situated in a region of riots or guerrilla activity, and no revolution or war --- even a “conventional one” --- takes place in these regions. The enormous quantities of extremely dangerous material must not get into the hands of ignorant people or desperados. No acts of God can be permitted.”

Quoting Dr. Alfven prominently, Dr. Gofman wrote his classic “The ‘Peaceful Atom’: Time for a Moratorium,” a short 4-page essay distributed in over 100,000 copies by Environmental Action starting in November 1972 (REF). Winding up, he wrote, “When one asks a nuclear technologist about the solution of the astronomically difficult problems nuclear power faces, his answer is invariably that we can solve them very soon. But ask him when solar energy can be fixed in useful forms for man’s use, he will look at all the green plants which have done this for eons and he’ll say, ‘Maybe in a hundred years from now or never.’”

Also in 1972, the quasi-official Committee on the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR Committee of the National Research Council) released its new report (ref). Again, all hell broke loose because, in previous reports, the Committee had avoided making any quantitative estimates of harm from the then-permissible dose. This time, in an effort to say that that the Gofman-Tamplin estimates were too high, the Committee had been forced to make its own estimates. Although the new BEIR estimates were considerably lower than the Gofman-Tamplin estimate of 32,000 extra cancer deaths per year, the BEIR values were still many thousands. Some of the press reported the BEIR estimates as a vindication of the“Gofman-Tamplin thesis” that presently permissible doses were too high. (Ref ). Despite many high-level requests that Dr. Gofman and Dr. Tamplin be included in the BEIR Committee, they were excluded from participation in preparing all such reports (1972, 1980, 1990, and 2005).

1973: Reprisals; the Start of an Early and Active Retirement
In 1973, Dr. Gofman was stripped by the Livermore Lab of all funding for his cutting-edge research on chromosomes and cancer, and so he returned to his professorship at U.C. Berkeley briefly, and then took an early and active retirement to continue independent, unpaid epidemiologic research and analyses of radiation health effects, full-time. Dr. Tamplin had lost his funding even sooner; he moved on, to the Natural Resources Defense Council in Washington, D.C.

Although Dr. Gofman had been excommunicated from radiation circles and their journals, his speeches, interviews, testimony, published letters to journals, and scholarly books (1981, 1983, 1985, 1990, 1994, 1995-1996, 1999), as well as his short papers for the Committee for Nuclear Responsibility, helped to advance the field scientifically. His work and bold words could not be ignored, and his independent insights kept pressure upon less outspoken scientists who were capable of good work but remained silent. Gradually most of his risk estimates and insights were adopted and claimed as their own by quasi-official radiation committees like the BEIR Committee.

Meanwhile, some independent public interest groups with attorneys had joined the fray. For instance, the Natural Resources Defense Council became convinced that the legally permissible doses from nuclear pollution should be reduced, and helped effectively to negotiate some very significant reductions.

1976: Colorful Warnings that Civilian Nukes Will Lead to A-bomb Proliferation
In a 1976 CNR essay (ref), Dr. Gofman warned again that worldwide proliferation of nuclear power plants would lead to worldwide atomic bomb proliferation. He had pointed this out in the 1971 book, too: “With the spread of nuclear reactors and eventual change to the fast breeder, plutonium will become as commonplace as heroin, and even more profitable. A serious, an unsolved and probably unsolvable, problem is --- how to prevent this plutonium from falling into criminal hands, where it can be used for blackmail and black-market enterprises?” (Ref pp.199-200 in 1971 edition; pp.181-182 in the 1979 edition)
.
The 1976 essay began with a passionate statement on August 2nd by U.S. Senator Stuart Symington, member of the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy: “For the life of me, whether it’s for economic or other reasons, I can’t understand why we let the Atoms for Peace Program --- which was begun with all good intentions --- become a possible Atoms for War Program all over the world.” The Senator’s overt frustration particularly resonated with Dr. Gofman.

In 1977, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission accepted expert testimony for and against the still lively plans to reprocess nuclear fuel and build the “plutonium economy.” Dr. Gofman submitted extensive testimony on behalf of the Public Interest Research Group (Ref). The testimony incorporated and expanded upon his 1976 paper, “The Plutonium Controversy,” in the Journal of the American Medical Association (REF).

1979: Nuclear Power Accident at Three Mile Island, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania
After the Three Mile Island accident in March 1979, Dr. Gofman became labeled as “The Father of the Anti-Nuclear Movement”(Refs) --- even though he always continued his vigorous support for America’s nuclear weapons program as a necessary though very dangerous deterrent to something even worse: The triumph of worldwide communist tyranny and consequently the possibly permanent extinction of liberty (Ref Irrevy p212, 1983 Radi pxvii. BSJ 1982, and “What’s Wrong Aug 1982)

By contrast, Dr. Gofman argued vigorously that civilian nuclear power was unnecessary, and that efficient use of energy in transport, agriculture, architecture, and manufacturing plus the use of all forms of solar energy (light, heat, wind, biomass) could supply plenty of energy worldwide for modern lifestyles. In 1971, he convinced Senator Mike Gravel to propose the first federal budget (a mere 1.5 million dollars) for commercial solar energy, but Senator Gravel’s amendment was stricken by Senator John Pastore, chairman of the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy.

1979: Witness in the Karen Silkwood Case; Opinion of Judge Theis about Gofman
During this second “celebrity” period, Dr. Gofman also served as an expert witness for the plaintiffs in some key lawsuits. The first, in 1979, was the Karen Silkwood Case. Karen had been a Kerr-McGee employee at a nuclear fuel plant who had somehow become highly contaminated with plutonium. She died in a suspect automobile crash soon thereafter and her family pursued a law suit against Kerr-McGee. As attorney Gerry Spence’s leadoff witness, Dr. Gofman explained why Karen was doomed and “married to lung cancer” by her exposure to plutonium (REF Rashke p.329). Dr. K.Z. Morgan was another key witness in the trial. The Karen Silkwood Estate won the case against Kerr-McGee. Dr. Gofman had provided his input without asking for or receiving any remuneration.

Because of nasty attacks later upon the character and competence of both Dr. Gofman and Dr. Morgan (please see Ken Peterson in Part 3, current contacts), the judge in the Silkwood Case was willing to state for the record: “My recollection buttressed by the written record of the case, of which I have a copy, indicates that their testimony was unsullied in its credibility aspects. In sum, the testimony was detailed, clear, and convincing …Reviewing in my own mind the many excellent experts in areas of human endeavor that I have heard during my twenty-four years on the federal trial bench, I believe these two gentlemen are among the most impressive, articulate, honest, and knowledgeable expert witnesses in their respective fields that I have had the privilege to hear and observe. [signed December 10, 1990] by The Honorable Frank G. Theis, Senior Judge and Chief Judge Emeritus, United States District Court, Wichita, Kansas (REF, p.173). Dr. Gofman cherished that statement.

1984: Witness in the Utah Fallout Trial; Opinion of Judge Jenkins of Gofman
In 1984, Dr. Gofman served in another landmark radiation trial as an expert witness. This was the “Utah fallout case” (Allen vs. the United States), a class-action by people who had been doused by radioactive fallout from the Nevada Test Site and later developed cancer. Judge Bruce Jenkins found for the plaintiffs, and in his May 1984 decision (pp. 356-57), he ranked Dr. Gofman’s 1981 book beside the quasi-official 1980 BEIR and 1977 UNSCEAR reports as one of the three major works in the field (REF KZ’s book too). The decision was later reversed when the government invoked the “discretionary function,” which allows the government to harm citizens if the decision was made in good faith by persons with the authority to do so.

For the same reason that the Judge Theis of the Silkwood Case went on record with his opinion of Dr. Gofman and Dr. Morgan, so did Judge Jenkins. He stated: “Drs. Morgan and Gofman appeared as expert witnesses. Both were called by the plaintiffs. In addition to expertise, each provided historic data. It appeared to me at trial that each was a scientist in the best of senses. Each had a high regard for truth. Each was gifted, knowledgeable, articulate. Equally impressive to me as their intellectual capacity and depth of knowledge, was what appeared to me to be their selfless motivation --- a genuine concern for people. I admired that. I still do. In crafting my opinion, I relied greatly on their testimony, their knowledge, their writings, their expertise. The opinion makes reference to them. I am happy to give you my brief impression of what to me are two persons of historic dimension and great merit. [signed January 10 1992], Bruce S. Jenkins, Chief Judge, United States District Court, Salt Lake City, Utah. Dr. Gofman definitely appreciated such a statement.

Cases of Military Veterans and Nuclear Workers Exposed to Ionizing Radiations

During this period, Dr. Gofman also prepared and submitted testimony in support of individual claims to the Veterans Administration by veterans with cancer, who had been exposed during their service to ionizing radiation (e.g. from the atomic-bomb testing). The government’s system for dealing with such claims at that period was so stacked against the veterans that he soon learned that their claims were nearly futile. Faced with an apparently endless series of requests from such veterans, Dr. Gofman reluctantly decided that the time-consuming review of individual medical records and preparation of individual testimony was not the most effective use of his time in the work for greater. for justice. He was deeply distressed to start turning down requests, but he did.

1986: Estimate of the Long-Term Cancer Price from the Chernobyl Accident
On September 9, 1986, Dr. Gofman presented his estimate of the cancer consequences of the Chernobyl accident, as an invited speaker at the Low-Level Radiation Symposium of the 192nd National Meeting of the American Chemical Society. His figure, never modified, was a half million undetectable fatal cancers from the cesium fallout alone (GIVE REF). Undetectable? Yes. Because the extra cancers would occur over a vast geographical area and over a century, even a half million fatal cases would be undetectable against the much higher “background” cancer rate. He thought Sherlock Holmes would be impressed by the capability to kill a half million people and get off scot free. His estimate was well covered by the press services, to the likely dismay of the nuclear industry which had a significant presence at the meeting.

1992: Swedish Award and a Big Donation
In 1992, he was awarded the Right Livelihood Award (Sweden) “for vision and work forming an essential contribution to making life more whole, healing our planet, and uplifting humanity.” He donated the entire award to the Committee for Nuclear Responsibility.

1995: Study of X-ray-induced Breast Cancer; Compliments from Radiation Insiders
In 1995 and 1996, British TV broadcast two documentaries (REF each) featuring Dr. Gofman’s 1995 study of the estimated contribution (large) of accumulated medical x-ray exposure during the 1920-1960 years to the subsequent rate of breast cancer in the USA (ref the book). Included in the 1995 broadcast were on-camera statements from two high-level insiders of the radiation community.

Mortimer Mendelsohn, M.D., Ph.D., a post-Gofman Director of the Livermore Lab’s Biomedical Division and, in 1995, Associate Director of the Radiation Effects Research Foundation (conducting the joint U.S.-Japanese study of the atomic-bomb survivors) said, “Dr. Gofman is a superb analyst and has always been at the cutting edge of medical science, particularly when it comes to protecting people.”

The late Edward P. Radford, M.D., epidemiologist and Chairman of the 1980 Committee on the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation of the U.S. National Research Council, said, “Dr. Gofman is owed a debt of gratitude by the scientific community because he was one of the first people to raise the issue of cancer risks from radiation exposure.” Dr. Radford himself had had to write a dissenting appendix to the 1980 BEIR Report (Ref) pointing out how the report tended to underestimate radiation risks.

The Journal of the American Medical Association also devoted a two-page article in August 1995 to Dr. Gofman’s 1995 monograph on x-ray induced breast cancer. Andrew A. Skolnick wrote, “A respected authority on the biological effects of radiation has just published a book claiming that the vast majority of breast cancers in the United States were caused by … medical x-rays…” Skolnick quoted from interviews he did with Dr. Gofman and with critics.

1997: The Cassini Spaceshot to Saturn and Interview by “Sixty Minutes”
Dr. Gofman’s devotion to protecting the public health sometimes caused a conflict with his love of advanced technology. For example, he was a great enthusiast for space exploration. In October 1997, Steve Kroft of “Sixty Minutes” interviewed him about the impending launch of the Cassini spacecraft to Saturn. Aboard its Titan rocket were 72 pounds of plutonium to run a “radioisotope thermoelectric generator” to provide power in the outer solar system. But plutonium, if inhaled as fine particles, is a very powerful cause of lung cancer --- and no one could rule out the possibility that a Titan accident after lift-off could deliver such fine particles over a large part of Florida. There were loud protests from some Floridians. Said Dr. Gofman with regret, “My heart says, ‘Go Cassini,’ because I love the space program. My head says, ‘Maybe we ought to say Whoa.’”

2003: Helping to Block a Gift to Terrorists
In March 2003, in his last public testimony, he warned about the consequences of potential theft and subsequent sale to terrorists of radioactive devices carried on certain trucks. Many such devices were already unaccounted for. From Senator Gloria Romero of the California State Senate, he received a letter saying security regulations had been tightened. “Your contribution to the KCBS piece and the hearing are largely responsible for those change.” (Ref}

4. Some of Dr. Gofman’s Own Comments on Those Battles and His Motives

Dr. Gofman was a naturally quiet man who was happiest in the laboratory. In conversations, he usually listened much more than he spoke. Nonetheless, he learned to respond ferociously to vicious personal attacks (it was said he wrote his rebuttals “on asbestos paper”), while not imagining that he could win against such powerful foes. In June 1970, he wrote in a letter to Dr. Eric H. Swanson, “We probably will not win our battle in a manner that we ourselves may enjoy. For those of us who ride down the roller-coaster to the bottom of the ‘success’ heap, I can only say we look forward to meeting the most interesting people there.”

Guidance from His Medical Degree
Early in the battle, he received a visit from the Director of the Livermore Lab. Dr. Gofman had recently estimated that chronic public exposure of all Americans to the then-permissible dose from nuclear pollution would result in about 32,000 extra cancer deaths per year (an early estimate which rose with accumulating human evidence). The director was clearly under a lot of pressure from the Atomic Energy Commission, which funded the laboratory, to stifle Dr. Gofman somehow. In his 1979 book (p.50), Dr. Gofman recalled that the Director began, “I defend absolutely your right, in fact your duty, to calculate that a certain amount of radiation will cause 32,000 extra deaths per year from cancer. But what makes you think that number is too many?” To which Dr. Gofman replied, “The reason is very simple. If I find myself thinking that 32,000 cancer deaths per year is NOT too many, I’ll dust off my medical diploma, take it back to the Dean of the medical school where I graduated, hand the diploma to the Dean and say, ‘I don’t deserve this diploma’.”

Comfort or Conscience?
Not long after giving his October 1969 paper at the IEEE symposium (ref), Dr. Gofman was interviewed by Anna Mayo of the Village Voice in Manhattan . Although others had already written books against nuclear power (refs Novick , Hogan), she considered October 1969 to be the birth of the movement to stop nuclear power, because of Dr. Gofman’s extraordinary scientific credentials. Before 1970, he was already under heavy attack by the Atomic Energy Commission and by many of the other radiation experts it was funding.

Anna asked him in 1969 why he had not kept quiet. She recalled later (Ref) that he shrugged and replied, “This nuclear thing, it was a stone that fell in my path, and so before I could go on I had to kick it out of the way.”
Soon after the Three Mile Island Accident in March 1979, People Magazine published an interview with Dr. Gofman entitled, “A Nuclear Pioneer Warns of Genetic Disaster” (Ref with photo). Referring to the years that followed his work on the first atomic bombs, years that were followed by years of heart disease research, Dr. Gofman said, “For 16 years, I didn’t even think of the nuclear problem. If I’d had my head about me, I could have helped steer off the whole nuclear development. My biggest feeling now is one of stupidity. I was asleep.”

5. Possible Impacts from His Scholarly Books

1981-1982

His 1981 book, “Radiation and Human Health,” not only made a clear difference in the Utah Fallout Trial (see “Milestones” above), but it was called “the bible” of the anti-nuclear movement, probably because (according to the review in the Journal of the American Medical Association (REF, March 19, 1982, p.1637) “This remarkable and important book enables any intelligent person with a high school education to understand the complexities involved in assessing the risks to man from low levels of ionizing radiation. Gofman not only demonstrates his mastery of this complex subject but carefully explains the basic concepts of epidemiology, genetics, birth defects, carcinogenesis, radiobiology, physics, chemistry and even mathematics, which are necessary to an understanding of the subject.” The book was translated and published in Japan, too.

“Radiation and Human Health” was published in the year following release of the 1980 BEIR Report (ref), and challenged quite a few of BEIR’s methods and conclusions. Therefore, the New York Times invited Dr. Gofman to participate in a three-way discussion on-the-record with two members of the BEIR Committee, including its Chairman, Edward P. Radford. Entitled “With Radiation, How Little Is Too Much?,,” the “roundtable” appeared prominently with photos in the paper’s Sunday “Week in Review” section on September 26, 1982 (Ref). Dr. Gofman was always hoping for some evidence of impact, but the practice of not measuring x-ray doses (and therefore making little or no effort to reduce them) continued. Dr. Gofman found it hard to believe that medicine tolerated the administration of a powerful, proven carcinogen and mutagen without insisting on measurement.

“My estimate is that in the next 30 years, medicine is going to sign about 1,400,000 death warrants as the result of unnecessary radiation exposure. I’m not talking about therapeutic radiation, just diagnostic. There is nothing on the cancer horizon aside from cessation of smoking that has a much prospect for improving public health as reducing diagnostic exposures. And I’m not speaking of eliminating a single x-ray. When the public starts to say they won’t go to a facility that doesn’t give a certified lowest dose compatible with getting good diagnostic information, then we are going to see a massive reduction … Medicine should clean up its act. We’ve got the competence in the form of health physicists and radiation physicists to show the way.”

1986

In 1985, at the request of Sierra Club Books, Dr. Gofman and Egan O’Connor produced “X-Rays: Health Effects of Common Exams.” It received good reviews in the New England Journal (Ref) and the American Journal of Roentgenology (Ref) and a bad review in the Journal of the American Medical Association (Ref). Dr. Gofman never opposed x-rays. He just wanted radiologists to reduce the doses of this proven carcinogen and mutagen, and he cited studies from Canada and the Mayo Clinic demonstrating that good images could be acquired from much lower x-ray doses. The book inspired a front-page article in the Wall Street Journal on December 11, 1985. It was entitled “Faulty X-ray Devices, Untrained Operators Overdose U.S. Patients” (Ref). Dr. Gofman was hopeful that the publicity would evoke immediate steps to measure and reduce x-ray doses. Instead, he was told how some influential radiologists blocked a proposed business that would have enabled patients to learn their “skin doses” by subscribing to a service that would measure them.

1990

His 1990 book, “Radiation-Induced Cancer from Low-Dose Exposure: An Independent Analysis,” included a powerful challenge to the popular “threshold” hypothesis which proposed that, at some unspecified low dose, repair of radiation-injured genes and chromosomes would be perfect, and that and below that “threshold dose,” exposure to ionizing radiation would be risk-free. Combining his knowledge of how ionizing radiation delivers its energy along primary ionization tracks, with existing evidence of cancer-induction at low doses, he was able to prove “by any reasonable standard of biomedical proof” that no exposure to ionizing radiation is risk-free with respect to DNA mutations. Within three years, the quasi-official radiation committees (the United Nations committee, the British committee, and two American committees) began gradually but openly to publish the same conclusion (REF = Gofman 1999, Appendix B, The Safe-Dose Fallacy: Three Remarkably Similar Reports).

The 1990 book was compared very favorably in the New England Journal of Medicine review (Ref) with the 1990 BEIR Report. Also it was translated and published in Russia (Ref) right after the U.S.S.R. disintegrated, and Dr. Gofman soon received an e-mail from a Russian geneticist calling it “a masterpiece.” A traveling American “activist” reported that he saw that book and also the next one (below) on the desk of every environmentalist he visited in Russia, Belarus, and Ukraine.

1994

In 1994, by request from citizens in Belarus for an independent expert opinion about the probable health consequences from the nearby Chernobyl accident, he completed a 574-page book, in which he provided lessons in radiobiology and explained how he derived his estimates (Ref). The book sold out immediately, except for some copies that were reserved as graduation gifts for medical students at the Minsk Medical Institute. Presumably both the 1990 and 1994 books had considerable impact in the former Soviet Union, where people no longer trusted experts employed by any government.

1995-1996

Dr. Gofman’s 1995 book (expanded second edition in 1996) presented his careful estimates of how much breast cancer in the U.S. was due to earlier medical x-rays during the 1920-1960 period (see “Milestones” section). Did it have an impact in his opinion? Dr. Gofman was always amazed how little detectable effect occurs even after two television programs and a two-page spread in JAMA . However, the book had a big impact on himself. He felt obliged to learn if breast cancer were special, or if medical x-rays were a necessary co-actor in causing all major types of fatal cancers.

1999

And so the 1995 book led to Dr. Gofman’s final “opus,” not yet well known. He thought only time would tell if it was his most important contribution to human health or not. It is his 1999 medical monograph