[ RadSafe ] RadSafe Digest, Vol 764, Issue 2

[Harrison, Tony]

Sternglass got his results by cherry-picking data, as do most of the other researchers you cite.  It's impossible to tell if his work is correct or not, but the odds are against it.  Like your claims of heart attacks in Japanese children, it's not science, it's pushing an agenda through pseudo-scientific obfuscation, designed to impress the scientifically ignorant.


Tony Harrison, MSPH
Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment
Laboratory Services Division
303-692-3046


Message: 7
Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2011 16:40:56 +0100
From: "Busby, Chris" <C.Busby at ulster.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Drawing the line between science and
	pseudo-science. (was Rational Thought)
To: "The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing
	List"	<radsafe at agni.phys.iit.edu>, 	"radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu"
	<radsafe at agni.phys.iit.edu>
Message-ID:
	<33024CCAFFB61C429DF9581DDE814DF40510B607 at MAILSERVICE.ad.ulster.ac.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain;	charset="iso-8859-1"

Steven Dapra takes some time to attack me. 
But talking about creationism, I believe that Steven Dapra is a Creationist. Is that right, Steven?
And dont knock Sternglass. His work is broadly correct. 
Chris


-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at agni.phys.iit.edu on behalf of Harrison, Tony
Sent: Wed 05/10/2011 15:02
To: radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu
Subject: [ RadSafe ] Drawing the line between science and pseudo-science. (was Rational Thought)
 
Interesting blog here:

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/doing-good-science/2011/10/04/drawing-the-line-between-science-and-pseudo-science/

The example given is the debate between evolution and "creation science" but the arguments apply just as much to anti- (or pro-) nuke opinions.  Take a moment to think about what sort of evidence it would take to convince you that your beliefs are false, and then see if such evidence exists.

Busby's citation of Sternglass et alia is laughable, but so are some of the pro-hormesis papers cited here over the years.  Both just show that the peer-review process is far from perfect.  Too many propagandists out there, and not enough scientists.