[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Cancer deficiency clusters
Ted,
What I think you say is true. But I would hope the researcher would provide
data that others would pick up an interesting side issue.
-- John
John Jacobus, MS
Certified Health Physicist
3050 Traymore Lane
Bowie, MD 20715-2024
E-mail: jenday1@email.msn.com (H)
-----Original Message-----
From: Ted Rockwell [mailto:tedrock@cpcug.org]
Sent: Sunday, July 21, 2002 9:38 AM
To: Dov Brickner; hflong@postoffice.pacbell.net; jjcohen
Cc: Gibbs, S Julian; Jacobus, John (OD/ORS); Radsafe Mail list
Subject: RE: Cancer deficiency clusters
> That's what I've been taught in "Research Methodology" cpurse few years
ago.
Let me get this straight, guys. Suppose I read about a restaurant that is
decorated in blue. And I think, "They've got it wrong. I've been there.
It's red." So I go back with the research intention of proving that the
restaurant is red. And I find it's blue. I take pictures and they come out
blue, But that doesn't proved anything, because if my INTENTION was to
prove it red, then my photos can only "suggest" that it's blue.
C'mon. Does anyone really believe that? I'm willing to admit that an
experiment designed to prove one thing might not be optimum to prove
another. When you're intent on counting dead mice, you might not notice the
happy mice. For example, there's a famous experiment which reported "Since
there is no reason to expect that radiation will beneficial, any deviations
from norm will be assumed to be detrimental." But that's just bum science.
What am I missing here?
Ted Rockwell
************************************************************************
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/