Re: Radon, smoking and LNT

[John, Jacobus]

Dr. Cohen, 

As I sure you know that part of the scientific method

is objectivity and the rigorous testing of results. 

As you know there have been many false starts in

science base on bad analysis of an experiment.  The

obvious one is the discovery of cold fusion.  Many

physicists questioned the initial results, but the

promise of a new discovery has too powerful of a hold

on others.  



Maybe we all need to take a step back and review the

situation calmly.  



--- BERNARD L COHEN <blc+@pitt.edu> wrote:

> BERNARD L COHEN <blc+@PITT.EDU> wrote:

> . . .> On Mon, 30 Jun 2003, John Jacobus wrote:

> 

> > So, only a physicist can adequately review and

> > criticize your epidemiological work?

> 

> 	--I was responding in a discussion about how

> physicists operate.

> To me, it is obviously the logical way to operate

> and I assumed that all

> scientists operate that way, but recent experience

> on RADSAFE and with Ken

> Mossman have shown me that such an assumption is

> wrong. There are those

> who feel that if things are not done their way, the

> work is wrong. For

> them to reject a novel approach to a scientific

> problem, it is not

> necessary to show that the justification offered is

> faulty, but only that

> it is not the way they do things.

> 





=====

-- John

John Jacobus, MS

Certified Health Physicist

e-mail:  crispy_bird@yahoo.com



__________________________________

Do you Yahoo!?

SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!

http://sbc.yahoo.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/