[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: The Great LNT Ecologic Debate
>will you accept the findings of NCRP as
final?
John, et
al.:
No scientific
finding should be accepted as final. History gives many examples where the
scientific mainstream was later proved completely wrong.
Ted
Rockwell
Dr. B. Cohen,
I wanted to comment on your recent post
when you stated that some
members of the list were taking "potshots" at
you. I am sincerely
trying to understand how in the world you can
say that when people
are merely trying to provide suggestions to explain
your findings
(you requested this offering large sums of money in fact).
I can
only imagine that you must feel responses that do not fit
into your
paradigm or are at odds with your views regarding your
findings are
potshots.
Dr. Dukelow took issue with my post where
I used the phrasing “bogus
reward offer”. I
must admit that I am somewhat of a bogophile
(that’s why I
made my first post), which stems from my Princeton
roots. I am
indeed mesmerized by how people respond to less than
genuine offers in
particular. My use of bogus referred to bogon
sources that tend to
make people behave mindlessly, see quantum
bogodynamics - - - - -
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=quantum%20bogodynamics
From
my perspective, Dr. Cohen’s reward offers are bogon sources
since he alone decides the outcome of acceptance of the offer. Has
anyone ever kept track of all the suggestions provided to Dr. Cohen
for explaining his data or suggestions how to improve his analyses?
HE has rejected them all, but others have not. He makes the
offers,
judges the submission, and passes the final verdict.
I
applaud Dr. Cohen for eliminating his reward offers.
If
collective dose assumptions indeed use similar data as used by Dr.
Cohen, I would suggest that the collective dose assumptions need more
review. Is the data used for collective dose better than what Dr.
Cohen uses?
NOW, how can one move from a bogen offer to a
genuine scientific
review?
Who would be the appropriate
reviewers to decide if you can use
ecologic data from the United States
and census information to test
the validity of the LNT?
Several
groups come to mind:
Epidemiologists/statisticians - These
folks have pretty much
rejected Dr. Cohen’s work (other than
Dr. Long of course).
American Nuclear Society –
Would there be a bias if they formed a
review group?
NCRP
– Will they be objective? Will Dr. Cohen accept their
finding?
Dr. Cohen – will you accept the findings of NCRP
as final?
Get your Free E-mail at
http://attorney.zzn.com
___________________________________________________________
Get
your own Web-based E-mail Service at
http://www.zzn.com
************************************************************************
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/