Letters to the Editor: 01.08.98
Letters to the Editor: 01.08.98
Harmless Quackery
East Hampton
December 29, 1997
Dear Helen,
I appreciate William Ellis's gallantry in defending his wife's practice of therapeutic touch, which in reality is a harmless form of quackery. And I appreciate the fact that in defending so-called energy healing, Mr. Ellis refers to himself as "a highly-trained and experienced behavioral scientist."
But I wonder why, then, when citing sources that endorse therapeutic touch and other "energy medicine" (whatever that is), he mentions only unnamed "scientists of stature" and such centers of quackery as the International Society for the Study of Subtle Energies and Energy and the Institute of Noetic Sciences, founded by astronaut Ed Mitchell, whom fellow astronauts, by the way, regard as nice but a weirdo.
In calling therapeutic touch pure hokum, I have the support of such "scientists of stature" as Stanford University Nobel Laureate Paul Berg, Paul McHugh, chairman of the psychiatry department at Johns Hopkins University, and Nobel Laureates Murray Gell-Mann and Francis Crick, who, as a group, are surely highly qualified to make a judgment.
Mr. Ellis, without mentioning the sources, also claims that "many studies, including impressive double-blind studies, have clearly demonstrated the efficacy of therapeutic touch." Where were these studies published, Mr. Ellis? In the journals Nature or Science? In the Journal of the American Medical Association, The Lancet, or other reputable publications? Not likely.
Finally, Mr. Ellis likens the nonexistent human energy fields to electromagnetic fields. As every schoolchild knows, electromagnetic or magnetic fields can be precisely detected and measured.
And, indeed, practitioners of therapeutic touch, who claim that healing occurs when they manipulate a patient's energy field (without laying a hand on the patient), say that they can feel that energy field.
So let's cut to the chase. There is a simple, eminently fair test that can verify or demolish the claim that a human energy field can be felt or detected by a touch therapist.
As I mentioned in a previous letter, that test (terms of which must be agreeable to both the claimant and the tester) can be made available upon short notice by the James Randi Educational Foundation of Fort Lauderdale, Fla.
Any touch therapist who can prove that he or she can feel or detect that field will be awarded a $1.1 million prize. So far, there has been just one taker, who failed miserably in the test, which was administered in front of staff members at a Philadelphia hospital.
But if you have the courage of your convictions, Mr. Ellis, perhaps you can talk you wife into going for the prize and demonstrating that the practice I call quackery is really valid.
Sincerely yours,
LEON JAROFF
Baby Teeth
East Hampton
December 31, 1997
Dear Helen Rattray,
Those attending the Dec. 5 Guild Hall meeting, "Brookhaven: Problems and Possibilities," expressed great concern about the newly announced high cancer incidence rate on the East End, especially for the female breast and male prostate.
As one who has long warned that radioactive discharges from both Brookhaven National Lab and Millstone contributed to the otherwise inexplicable Long Island cancer epidemic, I was interested in the defense of Brookhaven raised at the meeting by Dr. Stephen Musolino, a Brookhaven health physicist.
Star readers may recall that last year Dr. Musolino agreed to rebut my charges on an LTV program provided I would not be present at the studio. His appearance at Guild Hall and his willingness to defend Brook haven in public debate is a great advance and encourages me to pose some questions to him, which remain unanswered.
He announced that my proposed study of strontium-90 levels in Suffolk County baby teeth was "flawed" because we would indeed find trace amounts of strontium-90 due to past bomb test fallout and milk produced elsewhere, for which Brookhaven could not be responsible.
I find this to be an astonishing admission that fully justifies the decision recently made by the board of the new environmental nonprofit organization Standing for the Truth About Radiation (STAR) to finance the extension of the baby tooth study to all other areas possibly affected by reactor emissions of strontium-90, for which there is no natural source.
We have estimated that there are about 50,000 families in Suffolk County with children between the ages of 6 to 12, who annually lose and discard thousands of baby teeth. We currently have less than 200 baby teeth from Suffolk and other counties, clearly too few to yield reliable results.
My question to Dr. Musolino is this: How many teeth would we need from Suffolk County and elsewhere to justify his prediction that emissions from B.N.L. have been too small to be harmful?
Forty years ago, dental associations in St. Louis collected thousands of baby teeth and found a 20-fold increase in their strontium-90 content associated with the peak years of above-ground nuclear bomb tests, which helped persuade President Kennedy to terminate them in 1963.
The same question should be posed to Dr. Shirley Kenny, president of Stony Brook, recently designated to take over the management of the Brookhaven National Lab. She recently told David Friedson, STAR's president, that she was aware that the lab has lost the trust of Long Island residents and asked for our help in regaining that trust.
I am therefore confident that in time Stony Brook will endorse our baby teeth project, which will help establish the truth about radiation. Readers of The East Hampton Star willing to help STAR's baby teeth campaign should communicate with our East Hampton office at 66 Newtown Lane.
JAY M. GOULD
Fisheries In Trouble
Massapequa
December 30, 1997
Dear East Hampton Star,
I read the original Times article, the follow-up by Charles Witek, then your commentary in The Star on haul seines. Did you read the article in the Times?
For example, you write:
". . . Charles Witek 3d, who called haulseiners the "strip miners of the inshore sea," and said their nets kill thousands of bluefish and other untargeted species . . . ."
Witek did not need to say this, Peter Matthiessen, author of "Men's Lives," said this in his book. Witek quoted him, since you never would have believed it if it came from a recreational fisherman.
You write:
"He believes that if they are allowed to pursue a modified version of the fishery banned by the state in 1990, they would, in effect, deplete striped bass stocks singlehandedly."
Witek never says this, not directly or implied. He does make the point that he believes that this method of harvest is "dirty," and wonders why haulseiners are so interested in this gear type, when they already have access to the fish through a variety of other gear types.
You write:
"The best opinions are supported by fact and come from reliable sources."
Witek lists all of his sources: The National Marine Fisheries Service in its September report to Congress, Peter Matthiessen in "Men's Lives," the 1996 Ocean Haul Seine Survey, and a host of regulatory mandates that you can easily verify. You make vague references to a few of your own sources, though I would never be able to check up on any of them.
I have opinions on the remaining sections of your editorial, but it will probably get me nowhere. I'm sure this letter will never make it past your electronic in box.
The National Marine Fisheries Service has recently declared so many species as overfished! You mention a few where there is recreational participation, but you fail to discuss those fisheries in big trouble where it's close to 100 percent commercial: cod, silver hake, white hake, American lobster, Atlantic sea scallops, Atlantic swordfish, Atlantic halibut, tilefish, and monkfish.
My father used to take me fishing for some of these fish as a kid. In recent years, the commercial fisherman has removed the "sportie" from the equation, and I will probably never be able to venture out for any of those fish again in my lifetime. I don't want to see it happen with striped bass.
JOHN PAPCIAK
The question "Why this gear type when they have others?" reveals a sadly uninformed perspective. Pound traps work but are inconsistent and are a highly specialized method. Gillnets and the boats required to set them are expensive. Rod and reel pinhooking requires a costly investment. That the five haulseine crews already have the dories, nets, trucks, and, most important, the know-how to catch bass with ocean seines, is the heart of the matter.
In addition, modified haul seines could not possibly have a measurable impact on bass stocks.
Our figures on recreational landings come from the State Department of Environmental Conservation and the National Marine Fisheries Service. And, it was Charles A. Witek 3d who in The New York Times called haulseiners the strip miners of the sea. Peter Matthiessen is not quoted using the term, nor does it appear in "Men's Lives." Ed.
Please address correspondence to [email protected]
Please include your full name, address and daytime telephone number for purposes of verification.