Re: Reward

[Bernard L Cohen <blc+@pitt.edu>]

On Wed, 1 Mar 2000 Radiationhealth@aol.com wrote:

> << -- They did not claim that my analyses failed to demonstrate that
>  their proposed explanations for our discrepancy were very highly
>  implausible.
> 
> Dr. Cohen, 
> 
> My reading of their papers and letters leads me to think that they claimed 
> (no questions about it) your analyses failed to demonstrate that their 
> proposed explanations were very highly implausible.  
>
	Please be specific. In which case did Lubin or Smith state that my
analysis failed to demonstrate that their proposed explanations were
highly implausible. Please give page and line numbers. I don't recall them
ever even referring to my analyses, or recognizing their presence.

>I  call several side-by-side papers and several side-by-side joint
replies 
> publishing a dialogue correspondence.  Obviously, if the scientists did not 
> agree with your answer (and yours with theirs), it would not be a very 
> enjoyable experience writing a "joint" paper with you

	I wanted a dialog on their suggestions and my analyses of them.
Since they ignored my analyses, there was no such dialog. I don't see why
anyone would object to a joint paper with such a dialog; in any case, that
was the stated condition for my reward offer.

.    I am just voicing 
> my opinion that I do not think you previously adhered to the agreement you 
> made.

	How do you justify changing my reward offer and claiming that I
did not adhere to it? Not only did they not satisfy the conditions clearly
stated in my reward offer, but they did not engage in the dialog that was
the purpose of the reward offer.They did not satisfy either the letter or
the spirit of my reward offer.

	In any case, whatever problems you may have had with my previous
reward offers certainly do not apply to my new reward offer. Lubin and
Smith et al certainly would have qualified for my new reward offer (but of
course it is not retroactive).

	I am desparately trying to find an explanation for our data that
is consistent with LNT and will withstand quantitative analysis. That is
why I am offering these rewards. If anyone can help in finding such an
explanation, please send a paper to HEALTH PHYSICS and collect a reward.

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