1

CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN TED ROCKWELL AND THE NEW YORK ACADEMY OF SCIENCES
On April 26, 2010, the world became informed through a press release/article issued from an unknown source that a new book about Chernobyl health effects had been published by the New York Academy of Sciences. The press release was sent to Environment News Service and thousands of subscribers to that news outlet then published it on their websites or in print. April 26 is the anniversary date for the accident at Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant in the former Soviet Union which occurred on April 26, 1986

The book was published through the auspices of the Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. Nuclear engineer, Theodore (Ted) Rockwell, a long-standing member of the NYAS, was unable to believe his eyes when he read his email inbox that morning when friends alerted him to the news, and the next day wrote to the NYAS to make inquiries.

From: Theodore Rockwell Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2010 12:33:08 -0400 To: <[email protected]>, <[email protected]> Cc: WNA-JohnRitch Subject: Repudiation of false publication Attached is an authoritative, fully documented report by the foremost authority on the subject, showing that the Chernobyl nuclear incident of 1986 did not create a significant public health impact. There is virtually complete consensus on this conclusion among the many world organizations that have investigated the matter. In view of this, as a member of NYAS, I want to know whether the Academy did indeed publish the outrageously unscientific book, Chernobyl Radiation Killed Nearly One Million People as reported. If not, I urge you to make that fact widely known. If so, I want to know how that came about, and what steps will be taken to repudiate the book and its false and inflammatory message. It is important that action on this matter be taken quickly, to minimize the damage to the reputation of the Academy. Please let me know immediately what action is planned. If you cannot move quickly on this, I will have to proceed on my own. Theodore Rockwell Member, National Academy of Engineering, etc.

The attachment Ted Rockwell sent to the NYAS was an article written by world expert Zbigniew Jaworowski, published by the International Dose Response Society, based at the University of Massachusetts. The article is: Observations on the Chernobyl Disaster and LNT.

********************
From: Douglas Braaten Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2010 11:31:20 -0400 To: Theodore Rockwell Subject: RE: Repudiation of false publication Dear Mr. Rockwell, I just received your email of Tues the 27th. The volume of the Annals you are referring to is titled Chernobyl: consequences of the catastrophe for people and the environment; it was published in December of 2009. The volume is a translation of a book published by the same authors in Russian in 2007. It is not a new study and does not represent the position of the Academy in any way. We served only as the publisher of the book. 3

 Planning and executing the translation of the original Russian book was carried out in 2008 and the responsibility of the previous executive editor of the Annals. I came on board in early 2009, well after the project was formally accepted and entered into production. Finally, all Annals volumes are published with the following disclaimer: The New York Academy of Sciences believes it has a responsibility to provide an open forum for discussion of scientific questions. The positions taken by the authors and issue editors of the Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences are their own and not necessarily those of the Academy unless specifically stated. The Academy has no intent to influence legislation by providing such forums. Regards, Douglas Braaten Douglas Braaten, Ph.D. Director and Executive Editor ANNALS of the New York Academy of Sciences The New York Academy of Sciences 7 World Trade Center 250 Greenwich St, 40FL New York, NY 10007-2157 Cell: 1 646-704-2516 Office: 1 212-298-8634 Fax: 1 212-298-3644 Fax www.nyas.org

After noticing that hundreds of websites had issued the article put out by an unknown person who was clearly someone very close to the book, most likely its Consulting Editor, activist Janette Sherman, the NYAS posted a notice on April 28th 2010, regarding the Yablokov et al book. A screenshot of the page:

Douglas Braaten then sent the link to Ted Rockwell.

From: Ted Rockwell Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2010 9:45 PM To: Douglas Braaten Subject: Re: Dr. Braaten: Thank you for your prompt action. But that does not really answer the question: How does the Academy decide to publish a book like this? You say it does not present new, unpublished work, nor is it a work by the NYAS. Its conclusions are in direct opposition to the consensus conclusions of the responsible organizations, and it seems to have had no valid peer-review. I could understand how you might have decided to publish the UNSCEAR-2000 or 2001 Reports, the authoritative summary reports on the subject. But why this one? And what does this mean for NYAS reports in other fields, in which I have little or no expertise of my own? I have attached a report by Zbigniew Jaworowski, MD, PhD, ScD, ChairmanEmeritus of UNSCEAR, and recognized authority on the subject. I believe it is the best report on this issue, covering even the inside politics. It shows why the suggestion of huge numbers of deaths is not scientifically supportable. Ill give you a call tomorrow, and lets see where we go from here. I dont want to do anything to hurt the reputation of NYAS, but every day this issue remains unresolved adds to the damage. Thank you for your help. Ted Rockwell The report which was attached with the above email is the 24 page paper by Zbigniew Jawarowski published by the Dose Response Society in 2010 of the Environmental Health Sciences Program at the University of Massachusetts. *********** From: Douglas Braaten Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2010 09:40:32 -0400 To: Theodore Rockwell Subject: RE: Dear Ted, I will be happy to discuss the volume with you today. Please call my office number below. Regards, Doug 6

Douglas Braaten, Ph.D. Director and Executive Editor ANNALS of the New York Academy of Sciences *********** From: Ted Rockwell To: Douglas Braaten Sent: Sat May 01 17:10:25 2010 Subject: Re: NYAS comment on Chernobyl Doug: My apology! I do have the Academy statement, both electronic and paper printout, buried in the data jungle. Is it still on the Annals site? I will send you a private email, specifically documenting the reasons I consider that NYAS publication of this document is inappropriate. I think that will clarify the issue, without going public on it. Then we can discuss what happens next. Ted *********** From: Ted Rockwell To: Douglas Braaten Sent: Mon May 03 16:46:00 2010 Subject: NYAS Annals Paper on Chernobyl Douglas: Attached is a critique of the subject report. It explains and documents the concerns we discussed on the phone. The nuclear energy community certainly doesnt need another hit, among all the conflicting and erroneous information on the subject now filling the blogosphere. But I conclude that one more such report wont do any lasting damage to nuclear energy. But the damage to the reputation and credibility of our Academy is both serious and on-going. I dont know of other such blot on our record. The report that the Academy is making available to the world is both bad science and politically motivated propaganda. I urge that the appropriate officials in the Academy review the critique and decide whether you want to keep promoting such a report in the name of the Academy. If you decide to disassociate the Academy from the report, I urge you to do so as promptly and quietly as possible.

A minor note on the critique: It contains both American and metric units, because I used the same units as the source I was quoting. I would appreciate being informed as to your decision. Theodore Rockwell The critique referred to in the above email can be seen in the folder Materials Sent by Ted Rockwell to NYAS. *********** From: Douglas Braaten Date: Mon, 3 May 2010 17:28:48 -0400 To: Theodore Rockwell Subject: Re: NYAS Annals Paper on Chernobyl Dear Ted, Thank you for your letter. As I mentioned, I will read it carefully and I and the powers that be here at the Academy will continue to discuss the on-going situation. Our evaluation will be thorough, I can assure you. However, our deliberations will not be finished in just a couple of days, so I request your understanding in this matter. Finally, would you please clarify for me whether you have read the Chernobyl report published in the Annals? Thanks very much, Douglas

Douglas Braaten, Ph.D. Director and Executive Editor ANNALS of the New York Academy of Sciences Douglas Braaten then sent an Utne.com review of the book to Ted Rockwell on May 5, 2010 with a quotation taken from the review. This page was sent to you by: [email protected]

Chernobyl Death Toll: 4,000 or 1 Million? http://www.utne.com/Wild-Green/Chernobyl-Death-Toll-4000-or-1Million-7272.aspx If the truth is somewhere in between the two figures, neither one is of much help to people who are trying to decide whether new nuclear plants are a safe energy source [Quote sent by Braaten]
8

From: Theodore Rockwell Date: Wed, 05 May 2010 14:09:14 -0400 To: Douglas Braaten Cc: WNA-JohnRitch, Marv Fertel, Bill Tucker Subject: Re: UtneReader.com: Chernobyl Death Toll: 4,000 or 1 Million? Neither number is valid. Recognize the following: No one is talking about building more Chernobyls. The type of accident it had is physically impossible (not improbable) for the type of reactors existing or planned. We dont have any graphite to burn for ten days. We dont have control rods that can increase power, when calling for shut down. We have containment structures surrounding the facility. We are not claiming that the Chernobyl type of reactor is safe. It obviously wasnt. Even at Chernobyl, the public death toll was less than any of the numbers killed in separate gas, oil and coal accidents over the past few months. There is absolutely no evidence for the 4000 figure. That figure results from assuming, that despite evidence to the contrary, that one gamma ray can kill. That type of prediction is specifically forbidden, as scientifically unsupportable, in the many quotations I sent you. As for the reactors actually built, and those planned, or their fuel assemblies, the worst realistic event, involving fuel meltdown and major compromise of containment, is expected to yield few, if any deaths off-site. That conclusion was publicly concurred in by the Chairman of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and backed by a billion-dollar, four-decade study, involving several nations, documented in reports in the mainstream peer-reviewed journal, Science. Any disagreeing with that assessment has to start by challenging that report and the studies it documents. The 4000 number is not mentioned therein. The safety and reliability record of several hundred commercial nuclear power plants, operating in many different national environments, at up to 90+% of nameplate capacity, without a single radiological accident, for up to what your report calls two human generations, plus a comparable number of nuclear-powered naval vessels, is not matched by any other technology. What basis is there for questioning such safety record? Do you really want the Academys name backing pseudo-scientific speculation against such a record? Theodore Rockwell

From: Douglas Braaten Date: Wed, 5 May 2010 14:12:50 -0400 To: Theodore Rockwell Subject: Re: UtneReader.com: Chernobyl Death Toll: 4,000 or 1 Million? Ted, I merely sent the article to you for your information. Nothing more. Doug Douglas Braaten, PhD Director and Executive Editor, Annals ANNALS of the New York Academy of Sciences *********** From: Ted Rockwell To: Douglas Braaten Cc: WNA-JohnRitch ; Marv Fertel ; Tucker, Bill (Alexander) Sent: Sat May 08 13:50:05 2010 Subject: Nuclear Group email Earlier this week, I got an email addressed to a large list of scientists interested in energy policy, of which my name was one. The members of the list were distressed about your Annals report on Chernobyl, and were discussing various possible public options to express their disappointment that a legitimate science organization would publish such a report. I replied to the whole group, assuring them that NYAS was well aware of this situation, and was evaluating what action to take, understanding that a prompt decision was called for. I urged the group to take no public action until your decision was made, and that all interests would be best served if the whole matter were handled with minimum publicity. The less attention this report receives, the better. Aside from a number of individuals I have heard from, I dont know of any other group that is considering public action. I will keep you informed. I repeat my plea for prompt action. It really is a wretched report. I cant imagine anyone but Greenpeace being happy with it. Ted Rockwell

10

From: Douglas Braaten Date: Sat, 8 May 2010 14:17:36 -0400 To: Theodore Rockwell Subject: Re: Nuclear Group email Hi Ted, Thanks for the message. Relevant Academy principals, including legal council, are convening early next week (again) to determine the next step. As you can imagine, a course of action can be chosen only after careful deliberation. I'll be in touch ASAP. Douglas Braaten, PhD Director and Executive Editor, Annals ANNALS of the New York Academy of Sciences *********** From: Douglas Braaten Date: Tue, 11 May 2010 09:31:12 -0400 To: Theodore Rockwell Subject: update Hi Ted, I will be happy to let you know the outcome of our discussions here. Perhaps a phone call later this morning would be the easiest way? Ill be free at 11:30 or so; let me know if you are available. Thanks, Doug Douglas Braaten, Ph.D. Director and Executive Editor ANNALS of the New York Academy of Sciences *********** From: Douglas Braaten Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2010 12:52:32 -0400 To: Theodore Rockwell Subject: RE: A Serious Nuclear Challenge Dear Ted, 11

I just received your phone message. As I mentioned to you in conversation, we are moving ahead with having the volume externally reviewed. I also mentioned that the process would likely take weeks to complete. I cannot give you a firmer date for completing the task. More generally, I and the relevant Academy senior staff have taken your concerns very seriously and I have responded to them with the information that we are pursing the usual course of evaluation that occurs in these cases. Aside from this and the details I have already presented to you about the process, I cannot provide you with additional personal updates. When we have completed our review process we will make a determination of how best to move forward. Whatever our decision ultimately is we are committed to providing transparently the results of our evaluation. Finally, as I mentioned in more than one of our phone calls, we are grateful for your comments and feedback on this issue and we are working hard to find the best way to proceed now that the report has been published.

Regards, Douglas

Douglas Braaten, Ph.D. Director and Executive Editor

ANNALS of the New York Academy of Sciences

From: Ted Rockwell Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2010 2:49 PM To: Douglas Braaten Cc: NYTimes-MattWald
Douglas:

Subject: Re: NYAS Annals Paper on Chernobyl

The following statement from the influential Huffington Post arrived in my mail this morning: According to the latest compendium of studies, issued this spring by the New York Annals of Science, Chernobyl has killed some 985,000 people, and is by no means finished. It has done at least a half-trillion dollars in damage. The uninsured death toll and financial costs of a similar-scaled accident in the U.S. are incalculable, but would clearly kill millions and bankrupt our nation for the foreseeable future.

12

A journalist has every reason to assume that this outrageous falsehood is in fact, the latest compendium of studies, as certified by the New York Annals of Science. You have had more than ample time to convince yourselves of the falseness of this claim. If the Academy is not willing to clear its name promptly in this matter, I will take more direct means to do so myself. The only way to clear the Academys name is to demonstrate that the present management is unwilling to do so. Id like to believe that is not so. This is not a controversial matter. There is no valid other side to the question. Please let me know promptly what action you plan to take. Thank you. Theodore Rockwell *********** From: Douglas Braaten Date: Wed, 28 July 2010 To: Theodore Rockwell Subject: Re: NYAS Annals Paper on Chernobyl Dear Ted, As I have mentioned on many occasions, we are having the volume evaluated by outside experts; this evaluation is expected to take several weeks. I have also sent you the statement by the Academy outlining our position about the volume: http://www.nyas.org/AboutUs/MediaRelations/Detail.aspx?cid=16b2d4fe-f5b5-4795- 8d38-d59a76d1ef33 Regards,

Douglas Braaten, Ph.D. Director and Executive Editor ANNALS of the New York Academy of Sciences

13

From: Theodore Rockwell Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2010 15:48:07 -0400 To: Douglas Braaten Cc: NYTimes-MattWald Subject: Re: NYAS Annals Paper on Chernobyl Douglas: Your statement says the Academy finds the report to be deemed scientifically valid by the general scientific community. Thats what Im concerned about. What is the basis for that conclusion? That the Academy concludes that the work of all the other scientific bodies that reached wholly opposite conclusions is simply wrong about the consequences of Chernobyl? That you agree with the reports repudiation of the normal rules of science for conducting such studies? What are you telling us? These are rather sweeping conclusions. You owe your members and the scientific press an explanation. Sincerely, Theodore Rockwell *********** From: Ted Rockwell To: Douglas Braaten Cc: Rogers, Ken Sent: Tue Sep 14 22:21:48 2010 Subject: Peer review of NYAS report Doug: Your Chernobyl report contains a lot of data that has never before seen outside the old USSR. And there are a number of factual statements that are grossly wrong. But a case can be made that an independent peer review should be made of the data. That fact that they announce right up front that the rules developed by scientists over the past few centuries are not proper tools for the task make that a difficult chore. And they explain the gross difference between their report and the scientific community at large, by saying that all the international groupsUN, WHO, Red Cross etc. are all paid lackeys of the nuclear industry, and have kept all the good stuff under cover, also encumbers your job. But would it be accurate and honest to say that this is in fact what you are now doing: making an independent peer review of the data? I have to leave for the meeting at the Cosmos Club about 11 tomorrow, so Ill phone you before then, and ask just how to characterize your current 14

review. Maybe that will satisfy them. I keep telling people that I am confident that the Academy will do the right thing. But thats an increasingly difficult position to maintain. Weve got to wrap this thing up, before much longer. The claim that this is not really an NYAS report just doesnt wash. Why would you keep publishing a report if you didnt think it had value? Ted Rockwell *********** From: Douglas Braaten Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2010 10:39:17 -0400 To: Theodore Rockwell Cc: "Rogers, Ken" Subject: Re: Peer review of NYAS report Ted, I have nothing more to add now. When the review/evaluation is complete we will take the next appropriate step. Doug Douglas Braaten, Ph.D. Director and Executive Editor ANNALS of the New York Academy of Sciences *********** From: Ted Rockwell To: Douglas Braaten Cc: Rogers, Ken Sent: Wed Sep 15 20:50:33 2010 Subject: Re: Peer review of NYAS report Doug: Dont stiff-arm me. Ive bent over as far as I can, to defend you and the Academy in this matter. There is only one way to settle questions like this: the international scientific community has spent several centuries developing the tools for homing in on the truth buried in confusing data. This report flatly rejects that approach. While the accredited international scientific organizations worked openly together to document the data, your report reaches wildly different conclusions, only after renouncing the very tools of science. For example, the chapter summary statement, (page 32}: Using criteria demanded by the IAEA, WHO, UNSCEAR, resulted in marked underestimates of 15

the number of fatalities and the extent and degrees of sickness of those exposed to radioactive fallout from Chernobyl. And similar pronouncements throughout the book: Some experts believe that any conclusions about radiation-based disease requires a correlation between an illness and the received dose of radioactivity. We believe this is an impossibilityit is not necessary to calculate standard errorstodays scientific protocols with for example, confidence intervals and case control are not perfectIt is correct and justified for the whole of societyto use the enormous database collected by thousands of experts. In other words, one can report a much larger number of Chernobyl victims if not limited by the usual scientific practice of using only direct correlation of statistically significant data. That is certainly true. The data cited in this report are accumulated by stumbling across correlations of various illnesses or symptoms, regardless of whether such symptoms have ever been known to result from irradiation. Most have not. Conceding that such post-hoc pattern-building is generally disparaged by scientists, the authors argue that in the Chernobyl situation, it is required. There is no attempt to replicate or peer-review the data. The need for statistical significance is specifically denied. And the authors theory of radiation damage is bizarre. One physical analogy can illustrate the importance of even the smallest load of radioactivity: only a few drops of water added to a glass filled to the brim are needed to initiate a flowwe simply do not know when only a small amount of additional Chernobyl radiation will cause an overflow of damage and irreversible change in the health of humans and in nature. That doesnt even work with a glass of water. Well, thats true. Science cant support the huge predictions of death. So why is an academy of sciences supporting it? Ted Rockwell *********** From: Douglas Braaten Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2010 05:03:55 -0400 To: Theodore Rockwell Cc: "Rogers, Ken" Subject: Re: Peer review of NYAS report Ted, As I have said on several occasions, the Academy served merely as the publisher of this previously published material. I am following a formal process of evaluating it, which I've described to you. My personal opinion of the work is irrelevant to that process, which is in process and expected to take several weeks, as I have already said. I have also mentioned that I came on the scene after this material was accepted, and I am working hard to do the 16

right thing with this difficult situation. Until the review/evaluation process is complete, I will not comment further on the volume. I have, however, responded to you with general information and helped you obtain a copy of the volume. Regards, Doug Douglas Braaten, Ph.D. Director and Executive Editor ANNALS of the New York Academy of Sciences ******************** From: Ted Rockwell Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2011 3:35 PM To: Douglas Braaten Cc: Rogers, Ken Subject: STATUS OF SCIENCE REVIEW OF CHERNOBYL REPORT Douglas: I need to know the status of your independent review of the scientific validity of your Chernobyl report. When Greenpeace starts its media blitz on the 25th anniversary of the Chernobyl meltdown, I have to know where that stands. Ive kept telling people to hold off criticism, that you are making a good-faith effort to evaluate the report. Greenpeace has now foreclosed on that option. Please reply ASAP. Ted Rockwell *********** From: Douglas Braaten Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2011 15:39:28 -0400 To: Theodore Rockwell Cc: "Rogers, Ken" Subject: RE: STATUS OF SCIENCE REVIEW OF CHERNOBYL REPORT Dear Ted, We are continuing our efforts to have the report evaluated. In the meantime the official position of NYAS with regard to the volume has not changed and is clearly spelled out in 17

the statement we have posted on our website. And when a proper evaluation of the volume is prepared, it will be posted on our website. The volume is no longer for sale. However, we have no grounds for removing it from our website. Sincerely, Doug Braaten Douglas Braaten, Ph.D. Director and Executive Editor ANNALS of the New York Academy of Sciences *********** After getting the above email, Ted Rockwell turns to the Authors Guild for advice. From: Date: Subject: To: Ted Rockwell March 29, 2011 11:36:09 PM Legal Advice Authors Guild Staff

Once again I come to you good folks for legal advice. Your counsel has always been simple, brief, and very helpful. Ill keep this brief, but I have backup material for the asking. First, the facts. Then the question. In 2007, The New York Academy of Sciences (NYAS) was asked to fund the translation of a large mass of scientific papers in various Slavic languages, that claim to show that the number of deaths from the Chernobyl meltdown in 1986 was greater than previously believed. NYAS agreed to fund the translations. In 2009, the English-language report was published. It was atrocious. Not only was the science indefensible; the report said right up front that the rules of science were too restrictive for an event of this magnitude and grossly under-estimates the problem. The substance of this situation is not what Im asking you to address. So whether my characterization of the science is valid is, I believe, irrelevant to the question I am asking you. As a member of NYAS, I told its leadership that a serious scientific academy should not publish a blatantly anti-scientific paper, disguised as science. Moreover, the NYAS had casually let Greenpeace International take over editorship of the project. Greenpeace, it turns out, initiated the project, added papers of its own choosing from activists, doctoral theses (their words) and other unpublished papers, with no peer review. The NYAS did no writing, review, or editing of the report; it was strictly a Greenpeace product. NYAS answered my 18

concerns by saying it takes no position regarding the reports it writes, and states this prominently on its website and in each report. But Greenpeace is now citing NYAS, the publisher, as the authority for the Report. I expect that most people would accept that. When I first asked NYAS to repudiate the report, I cited the book Last train out of Hiroshima. That book turned out to be a non-fiction account based on an incident that never happened. The publisher, Henry Holt, not only stopped publishing the book, but publicly renounced it, took it out of the stores, and returned money to anyone who requested it. That example made no impression on NYAS. Heres where I get to the question Im asking you. NYAS said their lawyer would not permit them to do that. After pressing the issue vigorously, I got him to say that the only course legally open to NYAS was to bring in an independent panel of scientists to evaluate the scientific validity of the material. I told him I had done that in 10 minutes. The report itself denounces the scientific process, starting on page 2. NYAS said the evaluation might take several weeks; it would be improper to try to rush it. That was about a year ago. When Greenpeace recently announced it was going to promote this material a few weeks from now, for the 25th anniversary of the Chernobyl meltdown, I asked NYAS formally for the status of that review. They replied: We are continuing our efforts to have the report evaluated. In the meantime the official position of NYAS with regard to the volume has not changed and is clearly spelled out in the statement we have posted on our website. And when a proper evaluation of the volume is prepared, it will be posted on our website. The volume is no longer for sale. However, we have no grounds for removing it from our website. [TR note: And NYAS is still cited by Greenpeace as authority.] I sent a report of the situation to a number of relevant scientific organizations with the opening words: The message below claims that based on now available medical data, 985,000 people died as a result of the Chernobyl disaster. The authority for this statement is the book recently published by the New York Academy of Sciences. My question to you is: What legal options does a publisher have in a situation like this? Speaking only of the legal aspects, could NYAS have done as Henry Holt did with its flawed book? What other options, or restrictions, does the law offer? Thanks again for offering this kind of help to your members. Im really glad you folks are available. Id appreciate a prompt response, in view of the planned Greenpeace action in the next few weeks. Detail and legal citations are not necessary at this point. Your general overall response would be adequate, and much appreciated. Ted Rockwell 19

From: AnitaFore - AuthorsGuild Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2011 10:35:09 -0400 To: Theodore Rockwell Subject: Re: Fwd: Legal Advice Hi Ted: The real question is whether NYAS has a taste for taking any action in this matter. I know that seems reductive, but that's what's at the heart of this. Given the way I'm sure you know our legal system works, anyone with a taste for conflict can move forward -- very hard not to be able to assemble some kind of colorable cause of action -- even though whether they'd prevail or not is a different story. I suspect what's going on is that not only does NYAS have no taste for positioning itself as a party hostile to Greenpeace, it's also an indisputable fact that regardless of whether or not NYAS contributed to the report, it was indeed prepared under their auspices and, as such, it's a tight and untenable position to argue that NYAS has no ultimate responsibility for its contents. (The Last Train From Hiroshima is not instructive here for several reasons but the most important of which is that although Holt's decision was publicly based on the "authenticity" of the material, you can certainly be assured that the underlying legal reasons for withdrawal had a great deal to do with not only financial liability to consumers but also possible tort claims asserted by certain other folks associated with the events. Of course, Charles Pellegrino vigorously maintains that his work is based in truth and there are arrangements between Holt and Mr. Pellegrino to which no one is privy.) Sincerely, Anita Fore Director of Legal Services The Authors Guild 31 East 32nd Street, 7th Floor New York, NY 10016 p: 212.563.5904 f: 212.564.5363 *********************** From: Date: Subject: To: Ted Rockwell March 30, 2011 10:02 AM Legal Advice Authors Guild Staff

Anita: Wow! Thats what I call quick service. Thanks, much. You say NYAS has no responsibility for its contents. But doesnt Greenpeace also have a good case that, by publishing the report, NYAS is telling the world that they 20

consider the report of value to the scientific community? Else why do they publish it? If that is not their policy, it should be. What about that? And does their lawyer really have a case that NYAS has a legal obligation (to the authors) to not summarily halt publication? What about that? Ted

*****************
From: AnitaFore- AuthorsGuild Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2011 11:15:19 -0400 To: Theodore Rockwell Subject: Re: Legal Advice Hey Ted: I haven't seen the contracts that NYAS has with the authors, but it would be unlikely that any contract would circumscribe a publisher's First Amendment right to not be forced to publish something it doesn't want to publish. This is what makes me believe there is something going on behind the scenes in terms of the willingness of NYAS to position itself in a hostile attitude toward Greenpeace. Sincerely, Anita Fore Director of Legal Services The Authors Guild 31 East 32nd Street, 7th Floor New York, NY 10016 p: 212.563.5904 f: 212.564.5363 ********************* Ted then decided to send a formal letter to the Governors and the Presidents Council of the NYAS.LETTER SENT REGISTERED MAIL TO NYAS 4/21/11 THEODORE ROCKWELL 3403 Woolsey Drive, Chevy Chase, MD-20815 USA New York Academy of Sciences 7 World Trade Center 250 Greenwich St, 40th Floor New York, NY 10007-2157 21 April 2011

Publication by NYAS of Annals Vol. 1181 on the Chernobyl Meltdown of 1986

21

Attention: The Board of Governors The Presidents Council I write this as a concerned member of the NYAS, requesting action to end a stalled situation detrimental to NYASs reputation and well-being. The facts are these: Background In 2007, the NYAS undertook to support the translation of a large number of scientific papers in Russian and other Slavic languages, on the effects of the 1986 breakdown of the Chernobyl nuclear reactor in Soviet Ukrainia. In 2009, the English translation of this material was published as Volume 1181 of the NYAS Annals. Greenpeace claims that based on now available medical data, 985,000 people died as a result of the Chernobyl disaster. The authority for this statement is the book recently published by the New York Academy of Sciences. That death-toll is not supportable by scientific evidence. The Chernobyl incident has been thoroughly studied by the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation, the World Health Organization, the Red Cross, the International Atomic Energy Agency, et al., with update reports every few years since. These bodies all conclude that there has been no significant increase in the mortality rate or the incidence of cancer, birth defects, abnormalities and other health effects in the population exposed to fallout from Chernobyl, with two possible exceptions: A number of treatable thyroid nodules among children was attributed to the reactor, but since the nodule incidence (cases per thousand) was actually comparable to several other low-iodine countries without any radioactivity release, that attribution is being reexamined. A 2005 review of the data by an informal group call the Chernobyl Forum, included a suggestion that, based on the LNT premise (that even a single gamma ray could cause a cancer), 4000 additional deaths might ultimately occur. Since there is no indication that these deaths are likely, and since prediction of deaths by adding up of thousands of small individual radiation doses has been repeatedly forbidden as scientifically unsound, the suggested 4000 deaths has not been widely accepted. The NYAS book concedes that its extreme conclusions cannot be supported by the methods of science in a scientific report; the report itself is a direct repudiation of the scientific method. For example, starting with page 2, it states: Some experts believe that any conclusions about radiation-based disease require a correlation between an illness and the received dose of radioactivity. We believe this is an impossibility. (p.2); Using criteria demanded by the IAEA, the WHO, and the UN Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation resulted in marked underestimates of the fatalities and the extent and degree of sickness among those exposed to radioactive fallout from Chernobyl. (p.32 ); ...it is not necessary to calculate standard errorstodays scientific protocols with for example, confidence intervals and case control are not perfectIt is correct and justified for the whole of societyto use the enormous database collected by thousands of experts. 22

The Preface of the report states that the writing was undertaken with the initiative of Greenpeace International. The Acknowledgement section of the NYAS report opens with the explanation that the authors provided original material or reviews of specific topics to Greenpeace International. In effect, NYAS turned editing of the report over to Greenpeace, and now, Greenpeace cites NYAS as validating the scientific basis for its political agenda. The reports post hoc pattern-making method of analysis is widely disparaged in science. The editors say that any changes in cancer incidence must be due to the radiation from Chernobyl, because there were no other significant changes. But of course, if there were no changes, then there would be nothing to report. And, in fact, nearly everything they measured, changed. Which gave them much to report, but no basis for blaming it on radiation. Most of the variables they attributed to radiation have not been associated with radiation, and the authors offered no reason or evidence to assign them so. Moreover, radioactivity does not have the scary properties attributed to it in the report. The report claims increases in a very wide range of symptoms, extending far beyond those previously shown to result from irradiation. In addition, it describes the effects as extending far into the future: Nearly 400 million human beings have been exposed to Chernobyls fallout and, for many generations, they and their descendants will suffer the devastating consequencesin 400 years (20 human generations) the local populations in the Chernobyl-contaminated areas can be less radiosensitive than they are today. Will individuals with reduced radioresistance agree that their progeny will be the first to be eliminated from populations?... The overwhelming majority of Chernobyl-induced genetic changes will not become apparent for several generations Apparently, impaired immunity triggered by Chernobyl radionuclides adversely affected all of the individuals, without exception, who were subjected to any additional radiation. There is no credible science in the vast literature of radiation effects that would support such statements.

Status
A year ago, when the report came in, it was immediately apparent that it was not a scientific report, had numerous demonstrably false statements, and was not an appropriate report for a scientific academy. I reported this fact to Douglas Braaten, NYAS Annals Director, and recommended that he announce that conclusion and immediately withdraw the book from publication. He said he was advised by counsel that the only course legally open to the NYAS was to establish a neutral scientific body to make an independent evaluation of the report. Presuming this would not take long, I agreed to hold off criticism of the NYAS by assuring questioners that the Academy was making a good-faith investigation of the reports scientific validity. He said this would take weeks, and it would not be ethical to hurry it. I sought a second opinion from Anita Fore, Director of Legal Services, the Authors Guild, and was told: 23

I haven't seen the contracts that NYAS has with the authors, but it would be unlikely that any contract would circumscribe a publisher's First Amendment right to not be forced to publish something it doesn't want to publish. After several phone checks that gave no indication of progress, I wrote Braaten: I keep telling people that I am confident that the NYAS will do the right thing. But thats an increasingly difficult position to maintain. Weve got to wrap this thing up, before much longer. The claim that this is not really an NYAS report just doesnt wash. Why would you keep publishing a report if you didnt think it had value? Braatens latest reply said in full: We are continuing our efforts to have the report evaluated. In the meantime the official position of NYAS with regard to the volume has not changed and is clearly spelled out in the statement we have posted on our website (see note). And when a proper evaluation of the volume is prepared, it will be posted on our website. The volume is no longer for sale. However, we have no grounds for removing it from our website. Now, nearly a full year after I raised the issue, Greenpeace has announced that it is going to use this report, as expected, as the basis for its campaign timed to match the 25th anniversary of the Chernobyl incident on April 26. Any hope that the whole matter will fade away has now been foreclosed by Greenpeace. Action Requested I want to ensure that the policy-setting bodies of the NYAS are informed and satisfied that this situation will be resolved promptly and satisfactorily. Respectfully submitted,

Also enclosed with the above letter were the following extra comments: Additional Comments on the NYAS-Greenpeace Report on Chernobyl by Theodore Rockwell, NYAS member, Nuclear Engineer and Author The type of claims it makes, of extensive radiological damage to people and the environment from the Chernobyl reactor explosion of 1986, have been repeatedly shown to be contradicted by the data. The NYAS report unfortunately carries these claims to new 24

heights, calling the incident the largest technological catastrophe in history. claiming a danger greater than nuclear weapons concealed within nuclear powerNo citizen of any country can be assured that he or she can be protected from radioactive contamination. Getting more specific, the report claims Prior to 1985, more than 80% of children in the Chernobyl territorieswere healthy; today fewer than 20% are well. In the heavily contaminated areas, it is difficult to find one healthy child. The facts of the case are quite different. For example, in the exclusion zone, where the report claims it is difficult to find one healthy child, the radioactivity is lower than my sisters front yard in Colorado (where she raised four very healthy children, and the cancer rate is significantly lower than average). And the Ukrainian tourism bureau is sponsoring eco-tours to show how wildlife is flourishing because the human presence has been restricted. Two thousand villages in the evacuated zone are being repopulated. The Chernobyl meltdown has probably been studied more than any other industrial casualty, by the UNSCEAR, WHO, Red Cross, IAEA, et al. The NYAS report implies that these organizations are uncritical tools of the nuclear industry, but offers no supporting evidence for such a claim. Why are the conclusions of the NYAS report versus the consensus reports so dramatically different? There are several facts that contribute to the difference: a. Fear of radiation was rampant and deep-seated. Government actions were confusing and contradictory. Several of the medical specialists who investigated the aftereffects of Chernobyl noted that fear of radiation could by itself explain the spread of depression, alcoholism, absenteeism, abuse of drugs, sleeplessness, and the symptoms that such ills create and sustain. One example: Prior to 1986, the rate of abortions downwind of Chernobyl was fairly constant. The year following showed an additional 50,000 to 100,000 abortions, and abortion rates for following years returned to nearly the previous level. This is presumably because physicians advising pregnant women were ill-informed about the effects of low-dose radiation, and added to the problem, rather than alleviating it. It was repeatedly reported that fear of radiation was much more destructive than the radiation itself. b. The Ukrainian government offered extensive incentives to declare oneself a Chernobyl victim. The original contract with the Soviet government promised that any person injured by the reactor would be fully taken care of, at the expense of the Russian government. This provision came to include housing, hospitalization and other medical care, and cash. The program became so lavish and extensive that resentment grew up against the victims who were judged by many to be parasites. There were fund-raising tours through USA and elsewhere, of malformed Chernobyl victims who didnt even all live in or near Chernobyl. c. A collection of anecdotes is not data. Correlation does not prove cause. The data cited in this report were accumulated by stumbling across correlations of various illnesses or symptoms, regardless of whether such symptoms have ever been known to result from irradiation. Most have not. Recognizing that such post-hoc pattern-building is generally disparaged by scientists, the authors argue that in the Chernobyl situation, it is required. There is no attempt to replicate or peer-review the data. The need for statistical significance is specifically denied.

25

d. Exposed to radiation does not mean injured, though the report implies otherwise. All life-forms have been exposed to radiation, since the dawn of time. Table 1.9 of the reports Chapter 2 shows the number of people Suffering from Chernobyl Radioactive Contamination. Heavily contaminated areas is 270,000; Outside Europe is 4,000,000,000. These four billion people are said to be suffering from a Chernobyl radiation dose of 0.025mSv. This is about 1% of the global average radiation background from all sources, and many people will casually take actions that increase their radiation dose a hundred times the Chernobyl dose, just from the everyday activities of living. Marshall Brucer, the father of nuclear medicine, in his canonical Chronology of Nuclear Medicine, indicates how extensive this variation can be. On page 323, he lists various radiation background levels (with cosmic ray contribution removed) from New York City at 0.62mSv/year to SW France up to 87.6; to the potash fertilizer area in Florida up to 1,750. He notes, If you live in one place on earth, your background may vary from day to day by a factor of ten, or even 100The inside exposure rate can change by a factor of 10 within hours, just by opening windows. He notes that building with brick, rather than wood, can nearly double your daily radiation dose, but that the radioactivity of bricks and concrete is also highly variable: from 0.05 to 4.93 mSv/hr for bricks, and from 0.29 to 2.54 for concretes. A factor of 10 daily variation [in radioactivity] marks the diets of most people. As to the specific isotopes unique to nuclear fission: despite statements to the contrary in the report, over 99% of those were put into the air by nuclear weapons tests, not the reactor. The authors theory of radiation damage is bizarre. One physical analogy can illustrate the importance of even the smallest load of radioactivity: only a few drops of water added to a glass filled to the brim are needed to initiate a flow. The same few drops can initiate the same overflow when it is a barrel. [TR note: No, it doesnt. Just try it. The water will not run up and over the sides of a glass or a barrel.] we simply do not know when only a small amount of additional Chernobyl radiation will cause an overflow of damage and irreversible change in the health of humans and in nature No evidence is offered to support this unorthodox theory of radiation damage. One other factor makes the tiny Chernobyl dose appear to be so significant--the statistical magic of small numbers. Cluster analysis has been made notorious by Sternglass, Wing, et al. They look at the cancer rate in counties surrounding, say, a nuclear facility. They are shocked to find that about half the counties are above average. (This is not Lake Woebegone, where all the children are above average.) Asked about the other half, they say these are not of interest; those people are just lucky. If the average annual rate of cancer deaths in the counties of this study is, for example, 10, then suppose one of that 10 moves to an adjacent county. That raises the death rate for the new county to 11, and lowers the old county to 9 - a 20% difference! If, instead of 10, the average is hundreds, or thousands; do they then lose the magic of small numbers? Not at all. They can then break the data down into particular types of cancers, and/or age groups or other categories of individuals. The possibilities are endless. And its all bad science. Being the publisher of this book dishonors the Academy. If we continue to publish it, we are saying that it is a work that the Academy believes worthy of attention by busy scientists. Why else would we publish it? 26

There is no shame in reversing course when the facts advise it. This is best done quickly and decisively, with minimum publicity. Unfortunately, the latest move by Greenpeace has foreclosed on that option. Information about Theodore Rockwells career: http://www.members.authorsguild.net/tedrockwell/

This letter in the mail precipitated a reply from the CEO of the NYAS, Ellis Rubinstein.
From: Ellis Rubinstein Date: Thu, 19 May 2011 15:33:45 -0400 To: Theodore Rockwell Cc: Larry Smith, Douglas Braaten, Richard Baum Subject: Response to your letter of 11 May Dear Mr. Rockwell, Im sorry it took a few weeks to reply to your initial letter of 23 April 2011. Actually, we promptly took steps to ensure that your requested action was carried out, as you will see. We sent your letter to the Academy Board of Governors as a pre-read for their meeting of 5 May. At that Board of Governors meeting, your letter and the Chernobyl Annals volume were discussed. Also, Dr. Douglas Braaten, Annals Director and Executive Editor, briefed the Board on the history of the Chernobyl project and the events occurring since its publication, including the posting, on 26 April 2010, on the NYAS website of the Academys statement concerning the volume: NEW YORKChernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment, Volume 1181 of Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, published online in November 2009, was authored by Alexey V. Yablokov, of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Alexey V. Nesterenko, of the Institute of Radiation Safety (Belarus), and the late Prof. Vassily B. Nesterenko, former director of the Belarussian Nuclear Center. With a foreword by the Chairman of the Ukranian National Commission on Radiation Protection, Dimitro M. Grodzinsky, the 327-page volume is an English translation of a 2007 publication by the same authors. The earlier book, Chernobyl, published in Russian, presented an analysis of the scientific literature, including more than 1,000 titles and more than 5,000 printed and Internet publications mainly in Slavic languages, on the consequences of the Chernobyl disaster. The Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences volume Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment, therefore, does not present new, unpublished work, nor is it a work commissioned by the New York Academy of Sciences. The expressed views of the authors, or by advocacy groups or individuals with specific 27

opinions about the Annals Chernobyl volume, are their own. Although the New York Academy of Sciences believes it has a responsibility to provide open forums for discussion of scientific questions, the Academy has no intent to influence legislation by providing such forums. The Academy is committed to publishing content deemed scientifically valid by the general scientific community, from whom the Academy carefully monitors feedback. The Board is aware of the relevant issues surrounding the Chernobyl volume and the current course of action, as outlined in Dr. Braatens statement to you: We are continuing our efforts to have the report evaluated. In the meantime the official position of NYAS with regard to the volume has not changed and is clearly spelled out in the statement we have posted on our website [above]. And when a proper evaluation of the volume is prepared, it will be posted on our website. The volume is no longer for sale. However, we have no grounds for removing it from our website. The Chernobyl volume is an issue of the Academy journal Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, not a book. As part of an indexed series, we have no publishing or editorial grounds for removing the volume from the Annals series. The policy-setting bodies of the NYAS have been informed of this situation and there is no further action to report. Regards, Ellis Ellis Rubinstein, President and CEO The New York Academy of Sciences Rubinstein did not mention that a License had already been given out to Yablokov. This news only arrived after Caroline Webb sent an email to the Chairman of the Board of Governors and as many of that Board as she could find emails for on July 4, 2011. See the document: Correspondence, Caroline Webb/NYAS. A new move to placate critics was then sent to Ted Rockwell by Doug Braaten. From: Douglas Braaten Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2011 14:36:01 -0400 To: Theodore Rockwell Subject: update Dear Ted,

I write to inform you that at this time we are prepared to post on the Academy website 28

commentaries on the Chernobyl volume that speak to its scientific merit and which are not simply ad hominem attacks (all commentaries will be evaluated by the Academy before posting). And when our peer evaluation of the volume is complete, we will post whatever the evaluation consists of.

If you wish to send a critique of the volume, please do so. We do have the comments you have already made and could post these if you wish.

Regards, Douglas Braaten, Ph.D. Director and Executive Editor ANNALS of the New York Academy of Sciences ********************* From: Ted Rockwell To: Douglas Braaten Date Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 10:43 PM Subject Re: update Douglas: Your true adversary in this situation is not I and my opinions, but the words of the Report itself. The Chernobyl incident has been thoroughly studied by the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation, the World Health Organization, the Red Cross, the International Atomic Energy Agency, et al., with update reports every few years since. These bodies all conclude that there has been no significant increase in the mortality rate or the incidence of cancer, birth defects, abnormalities and other health effects in the population exposed to fallout from Chernobyl, with two possible exceptions: A number of treatable thyroid nodules among children were attributed to the reactor, but since the nodule incidence (cases per thousand) was actually comparable to several other lowiodine countries without any radioactivity release, that attribution is being reexamined. A 2005 review of the data by an informal group call the Chernobyl Forum, included a suggestion that, based on the LNT premise (that even a single gamma ray could cause a cancer), 4000 additional deaths might ultimately occur. Since there is no indication that these deaths are likely, and since prediction of deaths by adding up of thousands of small individual radiation doses has been repeatedly forbidden as scientifically unsound, the suggested 4000 deaths has not been widely accepted. The Report not only rejects the data and the conclusions of the worlds best authorities on the subject, but objects in principle to the scientific method, developed over the centuries to distinguish anecdotes from data. Instead, the Report uses the simple procedure of comparing numbers before and after the 1986 29

reactor meltdown, and assumes any changes must have been caused by the radiation, since nothing else had changed. But, of course, if nothing else changed, there would be nothing to report. And in fact, nearly everything they measured had changed, which invalidates the premise and everything based on it. The authors do give us a bizarre theory of radiation damage to bolster their methodology. One physical analogy can illustrate the importance of even the smallest load of radioactivity: only a few drops of water added to a glass filled to the brim are needed to initiate a flow. The same few drops can initiate the same overflow when it is a barrel. [TR note: No, it cant. Just try it. The water will not run up and over the sides of a glass or a barrel.] we simply do not know when only a small amount of additional Chernobyl radiation will cause an overflow of damage and irreversible change in the health of humans and in nature No evidence is offered to support this unorthodox theory of radiation damage. You have defined your support of the Reports scientific validity with your online statement of 26 April 2010, the Academy is committed to publishing content deemed scientifically valid by the general scientific community, from whom the Academy carefully monitors feedback. But that is simply untrue for this Report, as defiantly and repeatedly proclaimed in the Report itself. What are you going to do about that? Youve never played straight with me on this issue. Youve argued that it would be both unethical and illegal for NYAS to try to control any aspect of this Report, yet now you say that NYAS planned the Report from the beginning. Perhaps you didnt know. But dont you think we need to get to the bottom of this? The NYAS reputation looks pretty shabby at this point. And in trying to preserve it, Ive been made a nave patsy. Ive attached a chart of radiation doses, showing that the Chernobyl doses are not uniquely high, and a peer-reviewed purely scientific report of the radiation effects by Dr. Zbigniew Jaworoski, long-time chair of the Polish delegation to UNSCEAR, and the undisputed world expert on the subject. Theodore Rockwell Member, National Academy of Engineering

30

After hearing nothing about the progress of a Review of the Chernobyl volume after more than a year since it was supposedly set up, Ted wrote to Ellis Rubinstein in mid August, 2011 with a further set of questions regarding editorial process and contractual arrangements. By now Ted knows that a License has been given to A. Yablokov but the details are not known. From: Theodore Rockwell Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2011 13:43:53 -0400 To: Ellis Rubinstein Cc: John Sexton, Richard Baum, Douglas Braaten Subject: Seeking Clarification on Legal and Editorial Issues re. Chernobyl Consequences Book. Dear Mr. Rubinstein, I understand that the Chernobyl Consequences project was taken on by the NYAS Annals Department several years ago, through an introduction by Timothy Mousseau. Several questions are now bothering me, and as a concerned member of NYAS I want to understand the facts of what happened. I would like to know when a contract with A.V. Yablokov was signed and who the Executive Editor of the Annals was at that time. Did the contract get organized and 31

signed prior to commissioning translators or after that task had been completed and the English translation had been read? Was the English translation then read by the Annals Editor or was it passed over immediately to Janette Sherman? Was there any due diligence done by the Annals Dept. with respect to the sources cited in this work and with respect to the academic standing of the authors in the countries concerned? Who recommended that Janette Sherman be given the task of organizing the translated copy and was there any due diligence done with respect to her academic standing? I would also like to know if the contract with Yablokov required your signature or only that of the Annals Editor and/or VP of Publishing and Communication? Or were there two contracts: one between Yablokov and Wiley/Blackwell and one between him and the NYAS? If two contracts, were the dates of signing simultaneous or different? The contract must have had a clause specifying that the digital file of the Annals book would be released to Yablokov to be covered under a general License to republish or distribute as he wishes. Was this condition put forward by the Academy or by Yablokovs agent? Is this a License in perpetuity, or is there a time limit after which all rights return to the NYAS? What would impede the NYAS being able to revoke the License if they so decided? I would also like to know if any other Annals publication has had the same rights offered to those who worked to assemble it or if Mr. Yablokov has had special privileges given to him. Was this project enabled to pass through the Annals publication process with your personal blessing or did it occur without your knowledge at all? In your email to me of May 19, you said: "As part of an indexed series, we have no publishing or editorial grounds for removing the volume from the Annals series." This seems a spurious argument for retaining work under the NYAS name when it is doing more harm to the institution than good. An indexed series may have a gap if the judgment is made to create it. I look forward to receiving your response. Regards, Theodore Rockwell Member, NYAS and NAE While waiting for a response to the above email, more research brings to light a number of copies of the original file used to make the NYAS Annals volume 1181 now available on the Internet. It also brings to light that there is another version, without the names of the NYAS Governors and Staff, which 32

is being sold by Janette Sherman and others under License issued by the NYAS. So there are two versions of the book in circulation, but how could this have happened? Ted Rockwell decides to send another email to the decision-makers of the NYAS. From: Ted Rockwell To: Douglas Braaten Cc: John Sexton Ellis Rubinstein Date: Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 5:09 PM Subject: Questions re. License to Yablokov and Unauthorized Circulation of Original File Dr. Braaten: This email concerns the decision by the NYAS to issue a License to Dr. Yablokov and the circulation of the original file on the internet. There appears to be considerable inconsistency between the words written about the NYAS attitude towards the Chernobyl book as posted on the website on April 28, 2010 and your actions. You claim to be serving only as publisher and acknowledge that it is a totally unreviewed book, yet you enable it to be given wide circulation either deliberately or through not realizing the extent of the possibly illegal action that is taking place. I would be glad if you would address the following questions. 1. Is it conceivable that Wiley-Blackwell would have released the digital file of the book to unknown people thus enabling it to be posted for free download on an antinuclear website in Germany (http://strahlentelex.de/Buecher.htm) and multiple copies on Scribd.com? (see attached screenshots) If not, there is only one other place that the file could have come from, which is the NYAS. Was this file, with its cross-hair marks indicating it is a proof ready for printing, sent to Janette Sherman or to Timothy Mousseau or to Alexey Yablokov at any stage in this publication process? How else but through these people could the file have been made available? What are you going to do about it? 2. Why was a License issued to Yablokov? What reasoning lies behind this decision? On the one hand you decide not to do any more copies of the printed book and on the other you make the book available via a License. How can this decision square with a supposed review process that you have stated is happening ever since I first raised a protest about the NYAS being involved with this nonscientific book? Was the NYAS put under pressure by direct action tactics with a stolen file of the book leading to you being forced to issue a License? Regards, Theodore Rockwell 33

Several Attachment Screenshots were sent with the above email. These follow now. From Ratical.org we learn that Janette Sherman and Timothy Mousseau are acting as agents for the book in the USA and they sent this announcement plus the revised file to Ratical.org. http://ratical.org/radiation/Chernobyl/index.html#CCofCfPatE This book is the only publication to document non-cancer incidence and mortality in countries outside the Russian Federation, Ukraine, and Belarus and serves as a frame of reference and counterweight for officials who are obscuring the full scope of the Fukushima Dai-ichi disaster. First published by the prestigious New York Academy of Sciences (Nov. 2009 in its ANNALS), it is now out of print, causing lead author, eminent Russian biologist Doctor Alexey Yablokov, to request the right to reprint (recently granted). This reprint edition includes a separate index that was not part of the original book. Dr. Yablokov contacted his Consulting Editor, Janette D. Sherman-Nevinger, MD, and Timothy Mousseau, Associate Vice President for Research & Graduate Education, University of South Carolina, and asked them to be his agents in the U.S. The book is now for sale directly from the printer.

34

The file downloadable via Ratical.org (and scores of other places) does not have the names of the NYAS Governors and Staff at the beginning. Instead there are these words:

However, from this German anti-nuclear website, http://www.strahlentelex.de, we find the original file used by Wiley-Blackwell to print the paperback book How did it get there?

35

And the same Wiley-Blackwell file is to be found multiple times on Scribd.com Who released this file for uncontrolled duplication??

36

It is also to be found being advertised in the San Francisco Bay Review newspaper alongside an article by Janette Sherman claiming that Fukushima has caused a spike in infant mortality in some cities on the Pacific coast of the US and other discussion about Fukushima. There is a place to order the book on Shermans website as well.

On August 24, 2011 Ted receives a file from Caroline Webb which is a download of the standard terms of agreement between the NYAS and its Contributors: the COPYRIGHT TRANSFER AGREEMENT. The terms under which an author or editor of works could distribute the work are spelled out in Section C. There is no sign of anyone being able to freely republish or reprint their Annals contribution. 37

But Dr. A. Yablokov has been given permission to do this through the legal instrument of a License, dated March 15, 2011. Work started on this Annals production in 2008 Ted Rockwell now decides to go to the egal ounsel of the NYAS and ask her directly what has happened. Victoria Bjorklunds name is featured on the Chernobyl volume frontispiece along with other NYAS people, including the Governors. VIA: http://www.simpsonthacher.com website message system From: Theodore Rockwell Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2011 15:33:46 -0400 (EDT) To: Victoria Bjorklund Cc: Theodore Rockwell Subject: NYAS Annals - Theodore Rockwell, member NYAS I have been trying to find out how it is that the NYAS could have published the Chernobyl volume 1181 of the Annals since April 27, 2010. I have now looked closely at the Copyright Transfer Agreement posted on the NYAS website which spells out what Contributors to the Annals of the NYAS must agree to with respect to Copyright. In this document there is no mention of Contributors being allowed to reprint and republish wherever they like through a license being issued for such distribution. Section C of the Copyright Transfer Agreement is quite clear on permitted uses by Contributors of any work published through the NYAS. Could you please explain to me how it is that Dr. Alexey Yablokov has been given a License to republish and reprint the English version of his work when all other Annals Contributors do not have such rights? Is it the case that Dr Yablokov did not sign this CTA form but something else altogether - a special document actually conferring the right to such a License? Would you please find out and get back to me. That would be most helpful in the attempt to understand what has happened with this particular scientist/author. ****************

Responses are owed by the NYAS for all these questions. Ted Rockwell and others are waiting.

38