[ RadSafe ] Climategate and LNT

[chris.hofmeyr at webmail.co.za]

When preliminary science gives rise to an activist movement with high
public visibility and support from the media for an alarmist message,
resulting in big money becoming available for 'further studies' and
'action', the stage is set for scientifically unwarranted developments. 
Politicians, popstars and the marketing fraternity then tend to set the
tone and normal scientific discourse can be fatally skewed. Climate-gate
might turn out to be a case in point. But it is not the only one: HIV-Aids
in Africa is apparently turning out to be such a case. This is not to say
that Aids is not serious, but we have been constantly bombarded by cries
like "Africa is dying!!", or assertions that certain countries are being
depopulated due to Aids, etc. It is now slowly transpiring that the
attributable death rates have been exaggerated between a factor of four
and ten and that the regions that are allegedly 'depopulating' are
actually showing a significant population growth!  The problem is that
activists have been 'supporting' data that suited their interests like
UNAIDS model estimates and decried (and effectively suppressed) anything
to the contrary. The result is a drastic funding imbalance, which neglects
the real killer diseases, but it takes brave journalists or researchers to
point this out.
The above syndrome seems to be more likely in the case of 'difficult'
science for various reasons, and LNT certainly falls in that category.

chofmeyr at webmail.co.za

Kai Kaletsch wrote
> Friends,
>
> I think what this issue is making obvious is that politics and science are
> not a natural mix. Tactics that are absolutely necessary to 'win' in
> politics (such as trying to control the information and the message) are
> absolutely unacceptable in science, where it is not about 'winning'.
>
> Health Physics also has more political implications than some other
> scientific disciplines. I hope we learn something from this. On the LNT
> debate, we need to do a much better job of differentiating between what
> the
> science sais and what we think the policy implications should be. On the
> epidemiology side, I think we could improve transparency by making rawer
> data available and thus reducing the perception that the authors are
> playing
> games with adjustments and binning.
>
> Cheers,
> Kai
>
> Kai Kaletsch
> Environmental Instruments Canada Inc.
>
> _______________________________________________
> You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
>
> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood
> the RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
> http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html
>
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
> visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/
>



------------------------------------------------------------------------------
South Africa's premier free email service - www.webmail.co.za
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For super low premiums, click here http://home.webmail.co.za/dd.pwm