[ RadSafe ] RadSafe Digest, Vol 1241, Issue 1

[Brennan, Mike (DOH)]

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."

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Harrison -
CDPHE, Tony
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


Message: 9

> 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 ...
> Best,
> 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:
http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html

For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu