Re: RE: The Ultimate Hormesis Paper

[RuthWeiner@AOL.COM]

You know, i did not realize that my statement could be misinterpreted so readily.  I do not support submitting the paper for publication because it appears to support hormesis (which i have considerable doubts about myself) but because it seems to be an interesting study that is ready for peer review.  If there are obvious flaws in the method, peer review should find them. If peer review doesn't find them, and the paper is published with obvious flaws, I am sure the RADSAFE community will be down on the authors in a minute.



Moreover, I have seen several epidemiological papers in which either there was no correction for age mentioned or an age correction was claimed but the method of correction was not described.



I thought the study looked interesting.  I thought the Iowa study was interesting, also, though by spreadsheeting and graphing the published results I could not reproduce the claimed correlation.  But I have dropped the effort just because I am busy with other things.  



Ruth

-- 

Ruth F. Weiner

ruthweiner@aol.com

505-856-5011

(o)505-284-8406



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

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/