Re: Steve Wing, a scientist?

["Ted Rockwell" <tedrock@cpcug.org>]

I agree that the mere NUMBER of studies that contradict Wing is not
conclusive (although it's a pretty strong indication).  But the clincher is
that very specific scientific flaws have been repeatedly pointed out in his
work.  Selective (post hoc) use of data is the most egregious.  Wing has
never been able to rebut these widely disseminated criticisms.

His other error is to repeatedly cite casual speculation as proven data.
For example, "the A-bomb survivors are obviously hardier than those who
died, so it would be expected that they have a lower cancer mortality."
Interesting conjecture, wholly unsupported by data.

That is not science.  And his ideological statements, published in some of
his technical papers, belie the claim that he is apolitical.

TR



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