Re: Uranium story in Sydney Morning Herald

["Bjorn Cedervall" <bcradsafers@hotmail.com>]

More thoughts: No doubt that there is a family tragedy involved.
What is disturbing, as with so many previous stories of similar kinds, is 
that the writer makes no effort to explain the context in an understandable 
way. This is the standard technique of first having the case and then 
associate - the probability for the association automatically becomes 100% 
(compare the Wertheimer and Leeper power line study – also a hypothesis 
generating approach).

The family may for instance have some inherited trait that makes their 
genome instable. We cannot know this but it is possible. Then there is a 
lack of a more detailed epidemiological context (geography, frequency of 
various diseases, nutritional status and so on).

Instead we get a lot of suggestive reading (guilt by association).
The lack of an effort to clarify the context, may even worsen the situation, 
should we indeed have a cause-effect relationship on a larger scale. Why? 
Simply because suggestive political writing easily may make you not take 
warning signals seriously. Therefore, it is better (environmentalist hat on) 
to be as clear as possible with the facts from the beginning.

Again my personal reflections only,

Bjorn Cedervall   bcradsafers@hotmail.com

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html