[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Time out
Title: Message
John,
I did
not mean to infer by my comments that everyone who disagreed with Mr. Cohen
was attacking him, as in fact I do agree with your statement at least to an
extent. I have observed a number of comments/statements that were obviously very
professional and appropriate for a scientific debate. Others to me seem to fall
in a category of being a broken record with the intent of attacking Mr.
Cohen.
Frankly, I have pretty much used my delete button for these e-mails
because I lost interest long ago. However, like most I expect, I do scan the
subject and perhaps the first line or two to see what there is to offer. Some of
the suggestions seemed ludicrous and unprofessional. One for me was the
suggestion on the confederate states. After seeing some of the follow on
data/thought I can better understand the reasoning behind the suggestion.
To
those of you who are acting professionally and are participating in a serious
intellectual debate I do apologize if my words were interpreted too
broadly. My personal position has always been that open constructive debate is a
necessity in any endeavor and certainly is supposed to be and must be the basis
for scientific studies. I would suggest we do keep up the debates but just be
sure we do so in a professional manner.
Take
care all and have a great weekend.
Milton
Chilton, CHP
Milton,
I think if you review the mailings, you will see that Dr. Cohen has
always been treated with respect. Many disagree with his evaluation of
the data, and have tried repetatively to point out problems that they think
exists. You should know that some individuals on this list are not
health physicists, but epidemiologist whose job is to analyze data and
evaluate results. Dr. Cohen has been intransigent in his defense, which
is his right. I believe Dr. Cohen is willing to have the NCRP look
into his data, which will hopefully provide some insight into the
appropriateness of his data and analysis. (Of course, there are some on
this list who will never accept a result that contradicts their
believes.) Discourse is important in science to develop theroies and
advance research, and should be fostered.
I believe all of the radiation issues are routinely discussed on this
list, so none are being ignored.
"Chilton, Milton W."
<chilton@NV.DOE.GOV> wrote:
Bernie,
I believe your move is a wise one and I certainly believe you have
every
right to make such a request. You have certainly taken a valid
scientific
approach in inviting open discussion and critique. Unfortunately
our
current society seems to find it easier to throw dispersions and
personal
attacks against the scientist than it is to maintain a professional
and
objective dialogue. I personally am getting tired of the continuing
flap
and like others may finally choose to unsubscribe myself because of
the
endless attacks on individuals.
With all of the challenges we
have currently in the rad arena you would
think that members of the list
could find more appropriate and beneficial
uses for their time. . .
.
-- John
John Jacobus, MS
Certified Health
Physicist
e-mail: crispy_bird@yahoo.com
Do you Yahoo!?
The New
Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.