Letters to the Editor: 01.22.98

Joe McCarthy's Shadow

East Hampton

January 13, 1998

Dear Helen,

A few days ago an article appeared in Newsday (as well as in Jewish Week) that appalled me enough to post a letter to our Congressman, Michael P. Forbes.

I want to share my distress with the readers of The Star, in the hope that some of them will rally round and also send him letters critical of his position and the damage it does to our constitutionally sacred guarantees of free speech.

According to Newsday, Congressman Forbes was alerted by a group of "conservative" Jews that the Smithsonian Institution (remember the shameful Enola Gay episode?) had allowed a "liberal" Jewish philanthropic group - the New Israel Fund - to plan a series of lectures there, in honor of Israel's 50th anniversary this year.

The speakers all carried impeccable credentials - one was New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, another a member of the Israel Knesset, still another a professor at the Hebrew University. The latter (Ehud Sprinzak) was characterized as "sympathetic to Hamas terrorists."

As I was composing my letter to the Hon. Mr. Forbes, questioning his sources and the grounds for his actions, a small retraction appeared in Newsday, saying that, while Professor Sprinzak was critical of the Israeli right, he was not sympathetic to Hamas.

The damage had, of course, been done. The Jewish group Americans for a Safe Israel had likely planted this clever lie, gotten Congressman Forbes to swallow it and, unilaterally, to demand that the lectures be canceled.

It is altogether puzzling to me why Congressman Forbes has jumped so gleefully into this particular hornet's nest. He does not - as far as I know - have a large constituency of right-wing Jews with hawkish dispositions. Not in Quogue, certainly (I recall when it was difficult for a Jew even to rent a summer home there) nor in any other town or village on the East End - with the possible exception of Westhampton Beach, where a small cell of Orthodox Jews spend their summers. (I doubt they vote there.)

It is, of course, quite possible that a wealthy Jewish donor (or two or three) with a summer palace somewhere in the Hamptons gives lavishly to Mr. Forbes's re-election campaign. It is easy, these days, for someone with an agenda to buy the ear of an elected official (especially in matters he's clueless about - I mean, what does Michael Forbes know of the ins and outs of Jewish/Israeli politics?) and get him to do something he may think will raise no hackles in his district - or escape notice altogether.

Michael Forbes, a conservative ideologue, incapable of understanding that moral questions were raised when we dropped the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, certainly has no time to devote to the painful ambiguities of Israeli politics that endanger the agonizing way to peace.

Has it ever dawned on him that free discussions are the best (nay, the only) way to honor democracy - in this country and Israel as well?

The long shadow of Joe McCarthy still darkens the land.

Best regards,

SILVIA TENNENBAUM

Flawed Study

Shoreham

January 13, 1998

Dear Mrs. Rattray,

In a letter dated Dec. 31, 1997, Dr. Jay Gould rebutted some of my comments made in Guild Hall on Dec. 5, 1997.

I am perplexed by his characterization that my statements were an "astonishing admission" which then justify the basis for a study of strontium-90 in baby teeth.

I did point out that global surface soil and the food basket are contaminated from the legacy of atmospheric nuclear weapons tests that produced over 500 megatons of explosive yield. The environmental transport and depositing of the resulting fallout has been extensively studied and documented in the open literature. That was my source of information.

Any interested person can go to the local public library and obtain reports done by thousands of scholars and government health agencies all over the world. A particularly good book on the subject is "Environmental Radioactivity," third edition, by Merril Eisenbud. I use that textbook often.

In answer to his questions as to how many baby teeth would be needed to [prove that] emissions from Brookhaven National Laboratory have been too small to be harmful, my answer would be precisely zero.

The number is zero because I believe the end point Dr. Gould would like to obtain, evaluation of a link between health effects, strontium-90 and Brookhaven National Laboratory, is impossible to assess with this study. My "astonishing admission" is the fact that the study is scientifically flawed. It is flawed because:

1.While levels of strontium-90 above the drinking water standard have been found in specific locations on the B.N.L. site, these high concentrations have not moved beyond the boundary of the laboratory.

2.Hundreds of drinking water samples collected by Suffolk County authorities have documented that there is no strontium-90 from B.N.L. in local drinking water.

3.Strontium-90 is present in small amounts in soil and surface water all over the world. Thus, food, especially dairy products high in calcium, is already contaminated with small amounts of strontium-90. The greatest source of calcium in the diet comes from dairy products. Because Long Island no longer has commercially operating dairy farms, Long Islanders could be consuming milk from upstate New York, cheese from Wisconsin, and ice cream from Vermont.

4.Long Islanders are not being exposed to the strontium-90 on the B.N.L. site. We know of no pathway by which strontium-90 on the site can reach baby teeth. Moms would have to be eating contaminated soil or drinking contaminated water on the lab's property.

5.Because strontium-90 is chemically similar to calcium, it localizes in bone and teeth. If there is a health effect from high concentrations of strontium-90, it is leukemia, which is cancer of the bone marrow. Research has shown that leukemia is the most likely type of cancer to be triggered by radiation, because bone marrow is very sensitive to radiation. New York State health authorities have not documented excess cases of leukemia on Long Island.

As a professional involved in protection of the workers and public, I am very distressed that money and resources are being spent to conduct a test that will not lead to an improvement in public heath.

Anyone who is concerned about public health effects from strontium-90 should seek more information about the existing global environmental levels of fallout, as well as the radiobiology of strontium-90. If any of your readers choose to participate in the proposed baby teeth study, then I urge caution in drawing conclusions from any results.

Sincerely,

STEPHEN V. MUSOLINO, Ph.D.

Certified Health Physicist

Mulford Or Shaler?

Santa Monica, Calif.

January 17, 1998

To The Editor:

Jeanette Edwards Rattray's book "East Hampton History" says that the mother of a Mrs. David Hedges who committed suicide in 1806 was named Phebe Shaler Tillinghast. The Shalers were a big clan in Haddam, Conn., and there was a Phebe Shaler born there in 1739 or 1740 who could have married Joseph Tillinghast and come to East Hampton. I assumed that was the connection and in fact did considerable research in Haddam.

However, a recent Tillinghast genealogy points out that a Joseph Tillinghast married a Phebe Mulford in New York State in 1761. This genealogy concludes that Phebe Tillinghast was really a Mulford, not a Shaler.

While there were many Phebe Mulfords, there was specifically a Phebe Mulford who was born in East Hampton to John Mulford and Anna Stratton Chatfield in 1739 or 1740. Mrs. Rattray does not indicate who or if this Phebe Mulford married (p. 478).

I am doing research for a book, and the question I am wrestling with is: Was the mother of Mrs. Phebe Hedges who died in 1806 a Mulford or a Shaler?

Since the Mulfords are a very well-documented clan, I am surprised that this should be so uncertain. Does anyone have any suggestions as to whom I might contact to ask about this?

ALICE WEXLER

Ms. Wexler, who is researching a book on Huntington's chorea, may be reached at 225 Santa Monica Boulevard, No. 412, Santa Monica, Calif. 90410. She may also be reached by E-mail: [email protected]. - Ed.

Please address correspondence to [email protected]

Please include your full name, address and daytime telephone number for purposes of verification.