[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Cancer deficiency clusters
Jim,
Obviously you misunderstood my comments. But you are not the only one.
I believe that the purpose of the report was to refute claims of increased
cancer in Navy shipyards. Besides repairing ships, that seemed to be the
second biggest job we did. (Again, being in the Navy at this time, I was
aware of a number of programs involving radiation measurements, risks,
claims, etc. This cohort study (again, cohort) showed there was no increase
in leukemia and hematopoietic cancers in this group. This is all the study
was funded to show, and it did.
The problem is you are extrapolating the data and drawing a conclusion that
is beyond the limits of the study and the conclusion. To charge someone
with misconduct and dishonesty in scientific research is very serious,
particularly without proof. In law, it is called slander. Your proof is
based on an interpretation of the data in comparison with other SELECTED
studies and conclusions, that support your own political agenda.
My understanding is that in science involves careful study of observed
effects, compilation and interpretation of the data, and the drawing of
conclusions for the observations made. My impression is that a lot of these
epidemiological studies, including this study, have limitations that may
bias the results. However, I believe that it is better for those who have
more knowledge and experiences in this kind of work to restudy it for
accuracy. I notice that the vast majority of the people who support your
position on the LNT are not epidemiologist. Why is that? John Cameron is
not a epidemiologist, and I do not think you are also. Maybe the data
should be reviewed, but certainly not by "those who are familiar with the
data (and its manipulation and suppression)." Or maybe you do not want an
unbiased review?
Have a nice week.
-- John
John Jacobus, MS
Certified Health Physicist
3050 Traymore Lane
Bowie, MD 20715-2024
E-mail: jenday1@email.msn.com (H)
-----Original Message-----
From: Muckerheide [mailto:muckerheide@attbi.com]
Sent: Monday, August 05, 2002 4:25 AM
To: Jacobus, John (OD/ORS); radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu; Jerry Cohen;
John Cameron; howard long
Subject: Re: Cancer deficiency clusters
Very good! Thanks. Considering the actual content of the report, this
statement convicts Matanoski (and DOE and other LNT-committed <people>) from
her own admission that there was at least 'dissembling' to obscure/suppress
the data (that's a euphemism for "scientific misconduct" as defined by HHS,
kind of like the dishonesty of: "We did not see an increase in cancer." when
the actual data show a decrease). This isn't substantially dissimilar to the
data presentation (in one figure) that convicted Robert Liburdy of
scientific misconduct at LLBL (also for fabricating an adverse effect that
didn't exist).
Instead of wasting keystrokes here, perhaps it would seem to be easier and
more effective for those who are familiar with the data (and its
manipulation and suppression) to simply allege scientific misconduct and
undertake a formal proceeding to document the case on examining facts
instead of bureaucratic dissembling and mis/disinformation.
. . .
************************************************************************
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/