[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: Both the 100 years of radiologists and NSWS have strong pointsand weak points.

To: "John Cameron" <jrcamero@facstaff.wisc.edu>, <radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu>
Subject: RE: Both the 100 years of radiologists and NSWS have strong pointsand weak points.
From: "Ted Rockwell" <tedrock@CPCUG.ORG>
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 22:42:39 -0400
Cc: <hflong@postoffice.pacbell.net>
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To: <p0432042ab99324265ab2@[66.84.232.171]>
Reply-To: "Ted Rockwell" <tedrock@CPCUG.ORG>
Sender: owner-radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu

> I don't claim that either the radiologists study or the NSWS proves anything. They provide encouragement for doing a double blind study.

But isn't it interesting that all these "uninformative" studies all point the same direction and by about the same amount. Even data by various anti-nukes tends to come out that way, before they massage the data.

References:
- Both the 100 years of radiologists and NSWS have strong pointsand weak points.
  - From: John Cameron <jrcamero@facstaff.wisc.edu>

Prev by Date: Both the 100 years of radiologists and NSWS have strong pointsand weak points.
Next by Date: More on irradiated mail
Prev by thread: Both the 100 years of radiologists and NSWS have strong pointsand weak points.
Next by thread: Rermarks: Re" SOURCE DESTROYED ACCIDENTALLY.AT PARIS AIRPORT "/ Re:Serbian Fuel???
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread