[ RadSafe ] RadSafe Digest, Vol 764, Issue 3

Harrison, Tony Tony.Harrison at dphe.state.co.us
Thu Oct 6 08:59:10 CDT 2011

Not easily Jerry.  I don't archive such things, any more than I do Busby references.

But I would point to any paper that makes the argument that low cancer rates in Colorado are due to high background radiation, unless the author is willing to explore the idea that the same high background is responsible for the high rates of MS, Crohn's disease, or suicide in Colorado.  Most hormesis arguments seem to rely on the same sort of statistical correlations that link divorce rates with sunspot activity.

I don't insist that a mechanism be proven before cause and effect can be established, but you need more than one study showing a weak correlation.

Tony Harrison, MSPH
Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment
Laboratory Services Division

Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2011 12:44:28 -0700 (PDT)
From: Jerry Cohen <jjc105 at yahoo.com>
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 health.phys.iit.edu>
Message-ID: <1317843868.25884.YahooMailRC at web82707.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1

??? ?This is not intended to dispute what you say, but just for the record, 
could you please cite some of the references supporting hormesis that you 
believe?to have a shaky scientific basis, or are complete nonsense.

From: "Harrison, Tony" <Tony.Harrison at dphe.state.co.us>
To: "radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu" <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
Sent: Wed, October 5, 2011 7:02:22 AM
Subject: [ RadSafe ] Drawing the line between science and pseudo-science. (was 
Rational Thought)

Interesting blog here:


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.
You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list

More information about the RadSafe mailing list