Re: I'm get tired of it too, but...

["D. Kosloff" <dkosloff@ncweb.com>]

I will be holding my breath on this.  As some will be glad to hear.

Don Kosloff  dkosloff@ncweb.com
2910 Main St Perry OH 44081
440 280 5371


----- Original Message -----
From: Lew Helgeson <lewhelgeson@helge.com>
To: Multiple recipients of list <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2000 12:30 AM
Subject: Re: I'm get tired of it too, but...


> Maybe Sixty Minutes might want to look at these data a do an expose' on
> BEIR, EPA, etc. That would be a real switch from their normal broadcasts
> about the nuclear industries, but it might be worth a test of their
> interest in digging out the "dirt."
>
> Lew Helgeson
>
> At 04:51 PM 3/27/2000 -0600, you wrote:
> >Hi Bill,
> >
> >OK. Name one. Note that BRER (Board of Rad Effects Research) the
permanent
> >body forms the BEIR Committees, IS the NAS. Now what? So we move the
> >'independent adjudicator' to be the body responsible for determining
> >'scientific misconduct,' subject to court review.
> >
> >Note: the regulators keep the 'closed society' reports away from
> >'adjudication' by claiming that they can't be questioned in rulemakings;
and
> >we can't question the 'review committees.'
> >
> >So, we need a Federal court 'adjudicator.' :-)
> >
> >But your "Royal Society" doesn't consider the data any more than NAS.
They'll
> >both fight limits based on John Gofman's nonsense, but their not
'objective.'
> >The members are anointed, just like NAS.
> >
> >William Prestwich wrote:
> >>
> >> Dear Jim,
> >>         Clearly this isn't really resolvable.
> >
> >Of course it is. It just needs attention. As you say, an adjudicator. But
> >don't say "it isn't true" unless you objectively test the facts.
> >
> >>I do clearly remember a
> >> speaker we endured who insisted there was a government conspiracy to
cover
> >> up the dangers from low levels of radiation. Whenever he was challenged
by
> >> data in a publication he replied by saying that was "government
science".
> >
> >But was the data any good? What did your review conclude?
> >
> >Look at Lubin: gov't science. Howe. Matanoski. You can go on and on with
real,
> >clear, cases. Right here on radsafe, Otto Raabe described how Mays and
Lloyd
> >'cooked' the radium dial painter data to show a linear response, in BEIR
III.
> >Gov't science. He said they didn't intentionally misrepresent the data,
just a
> >matter of interpretation. I said, we just need to make the case and get
it to
> >an adjudicator! :-)
> >
> >Saying you 'endured' implies you didn't test the data. That's the Cohen
case.
> >If it wasn't for the lone commitment of Bernie Cohen, to produce
$millions for
> >a private study that 'gov't science' wouldn't do (e.g., terminated as
> >Frigerio's background radiation vs. cancer study); and then to continue
> >despite the unsupported attacks by the many 'gov't science' minions, is a
> >unique and unusual undertaking. Without that, all we would have is 'gov't
> >science' - by EPA - even the DOE radon program was killed in 1993-4, like
the
> >dial painter program etc. - and the affected parties are well-trained re
> >questioning the funding agencies again - like RERF's response after DOE
killed
> >the radium dial painter (Argonne CHR) program in '83. Like DOE suppressed
the
> >Nuclear Shipyard Worker Study, both as research and data (the cancer
cases as
> >statistically significant below the non-nuclear group, but that endpoint
> >wasn't included even in the 'summary' issued by press release; the
high-dose
> >nuclear worker study; the Canadian TB fluoroscopy study; and many others.
> >
> >How many people have produced solid data that contradicts the 'gov't
science,'
> >but have not continued, as Bernie has, to press for competent analysis
and
> >fight 'gov't science' to achieve a scientifically valid result. (It is
true,
> >of course, that we do not see people, Bernie or others, actually testing
> >Lubin's data/analysis. Of course many people just dismiss Wing's results
as
> >bogus science, but don't really challenge it explicitly. Who funds those
> >assessments? (Or what scientist will risk his funding on that? I assume
you
> >saw our report of a scientist that studied Bernie's data, esp his work
with
> >Harvard epidemiologist Colditz, and Lubin et al criticisms, and said she
> >agreed with Cohen et al., but had been warned off publishing by her
credible
> >peers who said 'who don't want to get caught in that political,
> >career-damaging, swamp.')
> >
> >Bernie has persevered. Consider that this is even after the full weight
of the
> >NAS, as the EPA-funded, BRER-formed, BEIR VI Committee, personally
trashed
> >Bernie, with his work dismissed in a couple of paragraphs in an Appendix,
and
> >outright in the body (as though there were an analysis backing it up).
This
> >included a figure that substantially misrepresented the data! As Mossman
> >showed! Thrown off BEIR VII, and now he has to work on recovering his
career.
> >(And where does an objection to BEIR VI go after-the-fact? Nowhere. Just
like
> >BEIR V. They simply ignore/suppress the data - Bernie's data AND the many
> >other confirmatory studies - and it's unchallenged. Gov't science.)
> >
> >As a footnote: I'm always intrigued by the dichotomy of the 'political'
> >response: "You can't do/say that..." about a
program/organization/project; and
> >then some small thing "breaks" and suddenly the same people are ripping
the
> >org apart for... all the terrible things we know about bureaucracies and
> >criminal enterprises: 'the police,' the Japanese economy in the '80s,
NASA
> >science & technology (every decade :-), etc. etc. Consider the Berlin
wall...
> >:-)
> >
> >Thanks.
> >
> >Regards, Jim
> >muckerheide@mediaone.net
> >========================
> >
> >>         We did have an incident here in which a government body
attempted
> >> to impose a ridiculously low regulatory limit. There was a full and
frank
> >> discussion, even if I remember correctly involving the Royal Society as
an
> >> independant body. The consequences were that the suggested limit was
> >> withdrawn.
> >>         It would seem to me that the Academy of Sciences would be a
> >> similar objective body to which you could take your case. The charges
you
> >> are making are extremely serious to anyone who truly believes in
> >> science. Your references notwithstanding, I think that an independent
> >> adjudicator is called for.
> >> Sincerely,
> >> Bill Prestwich
> >> McMaster University
> >> Hamilton, Ontario
> >> prestwic@mcmaster.ca
> >>
> >>
************************************************************************
> >> The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
> >> information can be accessed at
http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
> >************************************************************************
> >The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
> >information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
>
>
> ************************************************************************
> The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
> information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
>

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