[ RadSafe ] AW: How much of RSH still exists?

[Rainer.Facius at dlr.de]

John:

Actually I did not critique the Cardis et al. BMJ 2005 paper as it stands simply because it does not offer sufficient primary data to do so. Furthermore, BMJ is not the proper journal for a full report on an epidemiologic study of such proportions. 

Basically, the proper procedure would have been to first present the full data set in an appropriate journal like Radiation Research or the like and afterwards a summary like that in BMF would have been fine. After BMJ did publish the ‘extended abstract’ prematurely, writing to the editor would not have changed anything. And who am I to interfere with the editorial policy of that journal.  

Finally, as regards the timing of the BMJ paper, I find it hard to believe in a chance coincidence of that early BMJ publication date with the nearly identical publication date of the BEIR VII-2 report. Now the message of that summary can settle unchallenged for half a year or longer before a substantiated criticism will become possible.

Honi soi qui mal y pense!

Kind regards, Rainer


-----Original Message-----
From: John Jacobus [mailto:crispy_bird at yahoo.com]
Sent: Fri 23.09.2005 19:54
To: Facius, Rainer; feinendegen at gmx.net; higsond at bigpond.net.au; rad-sci-l at WPI.EDU; radsafe at radlab.nl
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] AW: How much of RSH still exists?
 
Rainer,
I note that you have been critical of the Cardis
paper.  Have you contact the journal editors about the
lack of raw data?  If so, what was their response? 
Since this is a retrospective study, would the data
not be in the references cited? 

--- Rainer.Facius at dlr.de wrote: