[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Bogen
Jim,
These postings are extremely tiresome.
You must have posted this same response 5 times over the past 3 years.
Bogen's work does not confirm Cohen's work, it merely suggested Cohen's
findings were biologically plausible.
Your views are about as objective as the ones posted at this other listserv
I used to subscribe to: see -
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=cohen+plutonium&hl=en&selm=8obu7g%243h9%241%40nnrp1.deja.com&rnum=1
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=cohen+plutonium&hl=en&selm=8oehjk%241le%241%40nnrp1.deja.com&rnum=3
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=cohen+plutonium&hl=en&selm=8oeh81%2417c%241%40nnrp1.deja.com&rnum=4
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=cohen+plutonium&hl=en&selm=8oc6c4%24cfl%241%40nnrp1.deja.com&rnum=7
Jim, rather than continously crying about all the bad and mean LNT
defenders, why not offer non biased commentary on the subject. Your
obviously biased rantings do more to support the LNT than to defeat it.
Let's get back to a focus on operational topics!
Les Crable
>From: "Jim Muckerheide" <jmuckerheide@cnts.wpi.edu>
>Reply-To: "Jim Muckerheide" <jmuckerheide@cnts.wpi.edu>
>To: "Kai Kaletsch" <info@eic.nu>, "BERNARD L COHEN" <blc+@PITT.EDU>
>CC: "RadSafe" <radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu>
>Subject: RE: Mechanisms are Needed to Explain Cohen's Data
>Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 05:46:51 -0500
>
>Ken Bogen addressed the biological mechanisms, and showed that EPA's
>environmental radon data by county for the US vs. women lung cancer
>mortality 1950-54 (smoking prevalence 4% and 11% in two age groups)
>confirms Cohen's data showing beneficial results at low doses. See,
>e.g.:
>http://www.belleonline.com/n3v72.html
>
>See the two paragraphs under "Materials and Methods," and Fig 2a!
>
>Another of the many substantial studies that confirm Cohen's results.
>
>You have recommended that the LNT-defenders consider mechanisms to
>support their position, but the very best of the science establishment
>have spent a decade trying, and failing, to produce any plausible
>mechanism to make the LNT theory "explain" the factual observations,
>without just rationalizations parroted here, and producing poor science
>and obfuscated data to support the LNT.
>
>Regards, Jim Muckerheide
>
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.
************************************************************************
You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,
send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu Put the text "unsubscribe
radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line. You can view the Radsafe archives at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/