RE: Love Canal

["Bradt, Clayton" <Clayton.Bradt@Labor.State.Ny.Us>]

I didn't question the existence of 'cancers'.  I was questioning the

existence of the 'association'. An association that can't be observed

doesn't exist. To an empiricist this is being real.

 

Clayton J. Bradt, CHP

Principal Radiophysicist

NYS Dept. of Labor

518-457-1202

clayton.bradt@labor.state.ny.us <mailto:clayton.bradt@labor.state.ny.us> 



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

From: RuthWeiner@aol.com [mailto:RuthWeiner@aol.com]

Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2004 11:42 AM

To: Clayton.Bradt@Labor.State.Ny.Us; radsafe-digest@list.vanderbilt.edu

Subject: Re: Love Canal





Let's stay real.  The article I cited didn't say anything about cancers

"existing," it said that essentially no excess cancers were observed.  The

Standard Morbidity Ratio is a perfectly acceptable and well-understood

epidemiological tool.  The difference between "no excess cancer" and "no

cancer" should be crystal clear to anyone who is not engaged in deliberate

distortion.



Ruth



RuthF. Weiner, Ph. D.

ruthweiner@aol.com