[ RadSafe ] Sternglass -Galileo Parallel :-) RE: Drawing the line between science > andpseudo-science. (was Rational Thought) >

Steven Dapra sjd at swcp.com
Mon Oct 10 20:41:38 CDT 2011

Oct. 10

         To reiterate what I said earlier today, Whyte's paper was a 
test of the Cross hypothesis, which had to do with the health effects 
of restricting oxygen for sick newborn infants.  Whyte shows a rise 
in infant mortality in England and Wales from 1951 to 1980, and a 
rise in infant mortality in the United States from 1955 to 
1979.  These are the only three countries he studied.  He does not 
know what the rates were in any other countries, nor does he claim to 
know.  Whyte is obviously perplexed by this rise in mortality.

         In the last section of his paper ("Alternative 
Explanations"), he is still perplexed by the lack of a possible cause 
for the rise in infant mortality.  Then, in the *last paragraph* of 
his paper, Whyte notes a possible environmental factor:  the rise in 
exposure to Sr-90 from atmospheric weapons testing.  He also mentions 
a rise in infant mortality in southern Germany in the wake of the 
Chernobyl accident.  He does not develop either of these points.

         Whyte does not mention Sternglass anywhere in his 
paper.  The sole mention of Sternglass is in footnote 32, where Whyte 
cites to Sternglass's lecture at the Hanford biology symposium in 
1969.  As I said earlier, Leonard Sagan largely destroyed 
Sternglass's claims.

         Busby asks below if anyone on RADSAFE has looked at Whyte's 
paper.  Well, I have.  Busby is the one who needs to not merely look 
at it but to *read* it, because it is patently obvious that he has 
not.  If he had read it he would know that Whyte did nothing that 
"vindicated" Sternglass's claims.  How can a researcher be said to 
have vindicated someone's claims when he does not so much as mention 
--- let alone discuss --- the other person's claims?

         Finally, note that Busby does not explain how Whyte 
vindicates Sternglass.  Like a stuck record he merely repeats his 
claim, apparently hoping that if he says it enough times people will 
get sick of listening to him and accept his falsehood in a vain 
attempt to get him to stop talking.

Steven Dapra

At 02:12 AM 10/10/2011, you wrote:


>When I say he [Sternglass] was generally correct I ask you to look 
>at the data. You can find it in the R Whyte BMJ paper I cited. Have 
>any of you even looked?


More information about the RadSafe mailing list