[ RadSafe ] Cell phones, nuclear power, global warming,etc

[Douglas Minnema]

Wade,
 
Good advice, and I follow it to the extent possible; in fact, it is part of my job to do exactly that.  And believe me, that approach has worked well for me over the years.  Actually, I only bought and read the book because I used to work at DOE headquarters when Michaels was there so I was interested in his views of that operation.
 
But unfortunately, I doubt that any of us can carry out your philosophy to everything that matters to us, if one believes the extent to which Michaels' concerns have spread.  For example, in Michaels' world the FDA's ability to assess the safety of medicines has been severely limited, as has their ability to communicate potential concerns to doctors.  Should I have attempted to look at all of the raw data and drawn my own conclusions before starting the antibiotics prescription that a doctor gave me two days ago?  Even if I had access to it, I doubt that I could draw any valid conclusions from it.
 
Note that I am not a hysterical layperson, neither am I endorsing Michaels' version of the world.  But when one realizes how easy it is to manipulate the data, tweak the models, or censor non-conforming results, and still make the product look like "real science" then it becomes really difficult to maintain a positive view on the whole business.  (Recall all of the recent discussions on global-warming and 'Climategate'.)
 
By the way, a little 'factoid' from the book that may surprise some.  The phrases "junk science" and "sound science" were apparently coined by the tobacco industry PR people.  "Junk science" was all of those 'flawed' studies that showed how bad smoking was, and "sound science" was the industry-supported 'research' that debunked all the "junk science" studies.  Nowadays we still use the phrases, but they have different implied meanings.
 
Anyway, an interesting book and food for thought for all of us responsible for understanding, regulating, or working in "risky businesses."
 
Doug

>>> "Wade Allison" <w.allison1 at physics.ox.ac.uk> 1/6/2010 1:46 PM >>>
Doug
"How would I know who to believe?" Very simple. Look at the evidence yourself and stop trying to weigh the opinions of experts! I am nothing to do with any safety lobby or nuclear industry but I did that. You might like another book to read but please look at the data and not the opinions. http://www.radiationandreason.com 
Best
Wade
 
Professor Wade Allison, MA DPhil  w.allison1 at physics.ox.ac.uk 
Denys Wilkinson Bldg., Keble Rd, Oxford, UK
Fellow & Tutor in Physics, Keble College, Oxford, UK 
"Radiation and Reason" http://www.radiationandreason.com ( http://www.radiationandreason.com/ ) (Oct09) 0-9562756-1-3
"Fundamental Physics for Probing and Imaging" http://www.oup.co.uk/isbn/0-19-920389-X ( https://winfe.physics.ox.ac.uk/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://www.oup.co.uk/isbn/0-19-920389-X ) (Oct06)

From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl on behalf of Douglas Minnema
Sent: Wed 06/01/2010 18:02
To: 'radsafe at radlab.nl'; Mark L Miller
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Cell phones, nuclear power, global warming,etc


Mark,

I have not read this book yet, will add it to my list.  In return, I'll add one to your list:  "Doubt is Their Product: How industry's Assault on Science Threatens Your Health," by David Michaels, Oxford University Press.

For those DOE'ers out there, David Michaels used to be the Assistant Secretary for Environment, Safety, and Health at DOE during the later years of the Clinton Administration.  He is most recognized for having pushed through the DOE workers' occupational illness compensation program.

Fascinating book, and apparently very well documented.  It describes how regulated industries, and industries in fear of future regulation, have created methodologies for defending their products against those who would regulate them.  Many of those methods would, on the surface, appear to be logical approaches to evaluating health risks based on sound scientific principles.  But the question becomes one of "what are the motives behind the scientific results" rather than "what are the merits of the scientific results."

Unfortunately, the book puts me in a quandary - now that Michaels has detailed all of the 'tricks' used to slant scientific results in various directions, I can see elements of these 'tricks' being used on both sides of the street, so to speak.  It makes me pause and ask myself, "how would I know who to believe."

Doug Minnema, PhD, CHP
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board

>>> "Miller, Mark L" <mmiller at sandia.gov> 1/6/2010 12:24 PM >>>
I recommend "Denialism:  How Irrational Thinking Hinders Scientific Progress, Harms the Planet and Threatens Our Lives" by Michael Specter, The Penguin Press. 

_______________________________________________
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/ 
_______________________________________________
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/