Another Battle at Radon Pass

["Fritz A. Seiler" <faseiler@nmia.com>]

A Comment by Fritz A. Seiler and Joseph L. Alvarez
on the Scientific Method and its Application to the
Discussion on the LNT and on Cohen's Radon Data.

Because of overlapping interests, this message is sent
both to RADSAFE and RISKANAL.

We disagree with Ken Mossman: It is not Bernie's job to show that
his radon data agree with the linear model.  The Scientific Method is
quite clear about the process: The yardstick of success is the
agreement of the model predictions with experimental data.

If  the predictions of the linear model do not agree with the data, then

the modelers loose; it is as simple as that.  Also, the only way that
Cohen's data could be proven wrong  would be by OTHER,
EXPERIMENTAL DATA and nothing else!  And when we say
other experimental data,  we specifically exclude numerical results
derived from an ANALYTICAL "experiment" like Lubin's
calculations.  Those numbers are not bona fide data but just the
output of yet another model.  What we really mean is good, honest
experimental information, the kind used by scientists who follow the
Scientific Method.  Lubin's "data" are definitely not of that kind.  So,

there is no refutation of Cohen's data by Lubin's arguments.

Therefore, as long as the modelers cannot make predictions that
agree with Cohen's data, taking into account whatever confounding
effects they choose to include, they  loose, hands down.