|
Ted,
I
would say that Arthur Upton is an outstanding scientist who credentials are
certainly well established. Obviously, his name on any report will lend
high credibility. I certainly do not have to defend his work or
reputation.
When
John Cameron was on the NSYS technical panel, did he raise any concerns about
the study results at the time? If so, were they addressed? (I would
check with Dr. Cameron) By the way, epidemiologist who collected and
analyzed the data was Genvieve Matanoski of Johns Hopkins University, not Arthur
Upton. Which, I am sure, raises the question as to whether Dr. Upton
or anyone else manipulated the data to fit the conclusion.
I
notice that the panel for NCRP Report 136 included nine other members. Did
any of them have any problems with the findings? I have not heard of
any. Have you?
It is
certainly possible for dissenting statements to appear in reports. I have
a copy of the BEIR III report of 1980 which has a separate critique authored by
Harold Rossi. I think that differences of opinion of complex data can
certainly exist between scientist. Particularly when different types of
studies using differenc models are considered. Even if a conscense is
reached, some the members may have reservations. For the two studies you
cite, I did not hear of any dissent among the reviewers at the time of the
report. Just with those who did not like the
conclusions.
Have a
good weekend.
-- John -----Original Message-----
From: Ted Rockwell [mailto:tedrock@cpcug.org] Sent: Friday, December 27, 2002 2:39 PM To: Jacobus, John (NIH/OD/ORS); 'Rad Safety Institute'; howard long; RuthWeiner@AOL.COM; sjd@swcp.com; radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu Subject: RE: Dirty bombs(more on the LNT)
|