Qualified physicist to examine Dr. Cohen's assumptions?

[FIELDRW@aol.com]

blc+@pitt.edu writes:

If you can find a theoretical physicist to serve as a referee between us on 
this issue, I would be delighted to have him make a judgment.   -- Very 
probably Nero would be acceptable, but his work that I know about has not 
been in theoretical physics. Could you give me 2 or 3 references to papers in 
theoretical physics that he has published?

---------------------

Dr. Klough, I feel that Dr. Nero is eminently qualified to serve as referee.  
I am certain he has an excellent grasp concerning Dr. Cohen's underlying 
assumptions. I have previously suggested another very qualified Physicist to 
Dr. Cohen, Dr. Daniel Steck, who has a Ph.D. in Nuclear Physics, but Dr. 
Cohen has not responded to my direct emails.  My guess is that the selection 
of a referee would fall into the same quagmire as the discussion concerning 
using an ecologic study to test the LNT.  Rather than examining Dr. Cohen's 
data any further, I suggest the time could be better spent on studies that 
have the ability to examine the validity of the LNT or on efforts to reduce 
smoking.  

On another topic, it is very sad and disturbing that the discussion has 
degenerated into personal attacks and the unsupported and unwarranted 
accusations such as those by Mr. Muckerheide recently against Dr. Lubin.  I 
would hope future postings would be more respectful.

I welcome scientific discussions concerning my past postings via private 
email (mailto:bill-field@uiowa.edu).  Otherwise, I will resist responding to 
postings on the listserv on this topic.

Regards, Bill Field
bill-field@uiowa.edu
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html