Re: Love Canal - AP and Study

[RuthWeiner@AOL.COM]

Sorry -- I cannot keep silence.



Science is not done by consensus.



The study on Love Canal from the 1981 issue of SCIENCE reads as if the authors approached it without preconceived notions about cancer incidence.  I first read the study with the preconceived idea that there probably WERE excess cancers, and that's what I was looking for.  I was quite surprised by the result, but this read like a very thorough study to me, and apparently to the peer reviewers, and on the basis of the study I dropped my own preconception.



I asked some time ago for a citation to a peer-reviewed study in a reputable scientific journal (and I'll  include RISK ANALYSIS in that)that refutes the 1981 study.  None has been forthcoming.  A "spirited debate" in New York State is not a peer-reviewed study.  



On the "jury still out" basis, perhaps phlogiston exists, Darwin was wrong, DNA is a fiction, and the sun revolves around the earth. Oh, and Newton's Second Law doesn't hold, we can build a perpetual motion machine, and tomatoes are poisonous.

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/