Re: NCRP bias?

["Jerry Cohen" <jjcohen@PRODIGY.NET>]

Sandy,

    Sad to say, I must agree with you. Scientists (except maybe for you and

me), can be as prone to bias as anyone else, especially when they have a

"sacred cow" they need to protect. Perhaps we need a Science Court to deal

with such matters. Such a court would need to consist of people who: (1)

have acknowledged scientific capabilities, and (2) have no vested interest

in the outcome  of the matter under deliberation. It might be hard to find

people meeting these requirements. Perhaps retirees who have nothing better

to do with their time than to serve on such panels??









----- Original Message -----

From: Sandy Perle <sandyfl@earthlink.net>

To: Jerry Cohen <jjcohen@PRODIGY.NET>; radsafe <radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu>

Sent: Friday, May 02, 2003 12:12 PM

Subject: Re: NCRP bias?





> On 2 May 2003 at 10:47, Jerry Cohen wrote:

>

> > On the other hand, NCRP is dependent

> > on the acceptance of LNT to justify its very existence. If low-dose

> > radiation were not considered harmful, or possibly even beneficial

> > in nature, why would we need an NCRP and/or similar organizations?



On May 23  at 12:12 PM, Sandy Perle wrote:



> This is of course true for our entire profession (includes

> government, private enterprise, consultants, etc.) Why stop with the

> NCRP? They're just want a piece of the pie as well.





************************************************************************

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/