|
John:
That argument
doesn't hold in the case of the Shipyard Workers Study. The head of the
Technical Info Panel was Art Upton. (Cameron was also on the panel.)
That panel met periodically to review all the data and procedures and assure
that the results would not be subject to any confounders that could be
avoided. He concluded the study was well done.
The senior author of
the NCRP report was--surprise!--the same Art Upton. So if you take the
first Upton as gospel, you have to find the second Upton as either devious or
fraudulent.
Or vice-versa.
Take your choice.
Ted
Rockwell
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu [mailto:owner-radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu]On Behalf Of Jacobus, John (NIH/OD/ORS) Sent: Friday, December 27, 2002 12:55 PM To: 'Rad Safety Institute'; howard long; RuthWeiner@AOL.COM; sjd@swcp.com; radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu Subject: RE: Dirty bombs(more on the LNT) Howard,
I find
it interesting that the authors of the Hiroshima-Nagasaki studies and the
shipyard workers did not consider the differences in expected and observed
cancers to be statistically significant. (Even John Cameron will
admit that his interpretations of the data are not those of the
authors.) Of course, these are people who actually performed the study and
maybe they were not as biased as others who are look for good news about low
dose radiation effects.
Have a
good weekend.
-- John
|