Re: Steve Wing, a scientist?

[Steven Dapra <sjd@swcp.com>]

Aug. 4

	Rudi Nussbaum wrote (in part) on Aug. 4:

<<<<<

If two studies based on the same raw data lead to different findings, it
clearly shows the influence (unconscious or deliberate) of methodology, in
particular the importance of identifying all important
confounders. Therefore, "preponderance", i.e. counting off number of
published studies and deciding about their validity by majority rule is
absurd. There is only valid refutation of the one study that disagrees
with the other one hundred if you can show an error in the analysis.The
other important question to ask is: who sponsors and pays for the
research?
>>>>>

	I think there is an influence of ideology as well.  Wing has openly
aligned himself with the anti-nukers.  (See the last paragraph of my July
31 posting to RADSAFE.)

	It seems to me that Wing's work flies in the face of virtually all other
epidemiology concerning radiogenic cancer.  Why should anyone give credence
to Wing's few papers that conflict with hundreds of others?

	About the sponsoring of research, the Wing et. al. paper in JAMA about the
Oak Ridge workers [JAMA, 265(11):1397-1402; 3-20-91] reads (p. 140):

	"This report concerns work undertaken as part of the Health and Mortality
Study of (DOE) workers being conducted by (ORAU) with the collaboration of
the School of Public Health (UNC) at Chapel Hill, under contract
DE-AC05-760R00033 between the Department of Energy, Office of Energy
Research, and (ORAU)."  (I know nothing about the funding for his other
studies.)

	I am wondering if Mr. Nussbaum has read and evaluated the critiques of
Wing's work (citations presented in my July 31 posting).

Steven Dapra
sjd@swcp.com



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