[ RadSafe ] Developing Body of Evidence to Refute Mangano and Colleagues
sjd at swcp.com
Tue Apr 19 21:22:19 CDT 2011
There has been no "scientific argument" because you have not
posted the text of your literary production. We can't argue with thin air.
I rather doubt that you know more about health physics and
epidemiology than does the ICRP.
You wrote, "In science, one reasearch [sic] result which
falsifies a model is enough." This is not so. You have obviously
never read anything by Michael Ruse.
At 04:54 AM 4/19/2011, you wrote:
>I just copied the citations using the different methods for citing,
>in case you needed them. What I dont see from you or anyone else is
>any scientific argument about the issue. Why is that? Is it because
>there is none. And if there is none, then it is a falsification of your model.
>Its all gone quiet over there except for one guy talking about
>hormesis. I can deal with hormesis, but lets stay with this paper on
>infant leukemia. If you cannot explain these findings, your ICRP
>model is dead in the water.
>I am not asking for a list of papers that support your model. In
>science, one reasearch result which falsifies a model is enough.
>From: radsafe-bounces at agni.phys.iit.edu on behalf of Steven Dapra
>Sent: Fri 15/04/2011 03:03
>To: Richard D. Urban Jr.; The International Radiation Protection
>(Health Physics) Mailing List
>Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Developing Body of Evidence to Refute
>Mangano and Colleagues
> Yes, what's with this? You cite your own literary
>production three times?
> When I asked for citations I meant to different papers, not
>to the same one three times.
>At 10:23 AM 4/14/2011, you wrote:
> >Where are the "hundreds' of peer reviewed papers?
> >I count one, two, thr... oh wait... these are citations of the SAME
> >paper from the SAME issue of the open journal... ONE which has had
> >FEWER than 2200 total views, both abstract and full since
> >publication 2 years ago.
More information about the RadSafe