[ RadSafe ] RadSafe Digest, Vol 1241, Issue 1
Brennan, Mike (DOH)
Mike.Brennan at DOH.WA.GOV
Wed Mar 20 12:24:25 CDT 2013
The trick with models is to be an engineer rather than an economist:
"The difference between an engineer and an economist is that an engineer
sees his models as potentially useful simplifications of reality, and an
economist sees reality as a special case, albeit a potentially important
one, of his model."
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Harrison -
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2013 10:12 AM
To: radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] RadSafe Digest, Vol 1241, Issue 1
LOL Remind me never to hire either of you to do my modelling for me.
In my experience people who model, and people who hire modelers are
after the same thing: the best estimate of "truth." Some models are
incomplete, but when all the models tend toward the same result, as they
do in climate models, you'd best take the results seriously.
Tony Harrison, MSPH
Inorganic & Radiochemistry Supervisor
Laboratory Services Division
Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment
8100 Lowry Blvd.
Denver, CO 80230
303-692-3046 | tony.harrison at state.co.us
> Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2013 21:03:13 -0600
> From: Maury Siskel <maurysis at peoplepc.com>
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Teller and Climate change - and radiophobia
> To: "The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing
> List" <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
> Message-ID: <5147D571.8090504 at peoplepc.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
> Thanks ffor voicing these comments, Jerry. I wish what you have said
> would have no application, but they are all too true. The organization
> and pursuits of the IPCC is another prime example of this exact
> process. Sigh ...
> Maury&Dog [MaurySiskel maurysis at peoplepc.com]
> On 3/18/2013 4:37 PM, Jerry Cohen wrote:
> > I reject the implication(s) that calculation models showing the
> >safety of the Yucca Mtn. project are sound while those predicting
> >dire consequences from climate change make sense. Both are designed
> >to determine some predetermined outcome and are therefore nonsense.
> >Tell me the answer you want and I can easily develop a model to get
> >that answer. No matter how you look at it, it isn't science! When
> >doing government sponsored research, you would be well-advise to
> >first learn the desired answer, and then get it---assuming you wish
> >to get more contracts in the future.
> > Jerry Cohen
You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood
the RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
More information about the RadSafe