[ RadSafe ] Drawing the line between science andpseudo-science. (was Rational Thought)

[Steven Dapra]

Oct. 10

         Whyte's paper did not vindicate Sternglass's findings.  It 
was a re-assessment of the Cross hypothesis, which had to do with 
infant mortality as a result of restricting oxygen for sick newborn 
infants.  Oxygen was restricted because excessive ambient oxygen was 
discovered to be a cause of retrolental fibroplasia.

         In the last paragraph of his paper, Whyte alludes to 
possible environmental factors that could affect infant mortality, 
such as the "rise in exposure to strontium-90."  He cites 
Sternglass's lecture in the Proceedings of the ninth annual Hanford 
biology symposium at Richland, Washington, May 5-8, 1969.  I have a 
copy of Sternglass's lecture.  It is followed by a reply from Leonard 
Sagan, who largely destroys Sternglass's claims.  Sagan is followed 
by a general discussion of the whole matter.  Even Alice Stewart 
scoffs at Sternglass's claims.

         We had this battle earlier this year on RADSAFE.  Evidently 
Busby has forgotten about it, or perhaps he didn't read it, or . . . 
who knows.  Whatever the case, Sternglass's work was very definitely 
not vindicated by Whyte.

Steven Dapra


At 02:51 AM 10/6/2011, you wrote:
>Nevertheless, Sternglass work was followed up much later with more 
>data by Whyte and published in the prestigious British Medical 
>Journal a paper which vindicated his findings:
>
>Whyte R K, (1992) First Day Neonatal Mortality since 1935: A 
>Re-examination of the Cross Hypothesis, British Medical Journal, 304: 343-6.
>
>Sincerely
>
>Chris Busby
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: radsafe-bounces at agni.phys.iit.edu on behalf of Bob Cherry
>Sent: Thu 06/10/2011 04:40
>To: 'The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List'
>Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Drawing the line between science 
>andpseudo-science. (was Rational Thought)
>
>The December 1996 issue of the HPS Newsletter refers to an even earlier
>issue:
>
>Every issue of the HPS Newsletter seems to have information
>important enough to reference. The August
>1971 issue is no exception. An exceptional event was
>described in that issue. After Ernest Sternglass presented
>a paper on an epidemiological study describing health
>effects from nuclear facilities discharges, Dade Moeller,
>President-Elect, read a statement that had been signed by
>Claire Palmiter, President. and all 13 past presidents of
>the Society.
>
>In part. it stated that Sternglass had presented papers
>in which he associates an increase in infant mortality
>with low levels of radiation exposure ... His allegations
>made in several forms, have in each instance been ana.
>lyzed by scientists, physicians, and biostatisticians in the
>federal government, in individual states that have been
>involved in his reports. and by qualified scientists in other
>countries. . Without exception, these agencies and scientists
>have concluded that Dr. Sternglass' arguments are
>not substantiated by the data he presents. The United
>States Public Health Service, the Environmental Protection
>Agency, the States of New York, Pennsylvania,
>Michigan, and Illinois have issued formal reports in rebuttal
>of Dr. Sternglass' arguments.
>
>Again. in spite of the efforts by the most respected
>authorities to prevent the widespread broadcasting of
>Sternglass' flawed perceptions, Sternglass was sought for
>comments by the media and his story told countless times.
>The public was presented with fearful misinformation.
>Many members of the Society wanted stronger efforts to
>counter erroneous information, but our story was not
>considered newsworthy by the media.
>
>--from Bob C
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
>[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Steven Dapra
>Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2011 7:27 PM
>To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
>Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Drawing the line between science and
>pseudo-science. (was Rational Thought)
>
>Oct. 5
>
>          Sternglass is a charlatan.  See Samuel McCracken's analysis of some
>of his claims in "The War Against the Atom," pp. 122-133.
>
>Steven Dapra
>
>
>At 09:40 AM 10/5/2011, you wrote:
>
>[edit]
>
> >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)
>
>[edit]
>
> >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.