[ RadSafe ] NAS "impartiality"

[jjcohen at prodigy.net]

Jim,
    I said they may be good scientists in a perhaps misguided effort to be kind. OK, so they are likely a bunch of biased self-serving stooges. Is that any better?   Any way you look at it, their report was high-handed and it appears that they were determined not to consider any  facts that might interfere with their predetermined conclusions.  Gosh, I feel better already.    
    However, I still feel that epidemiology, properly performed, can be a useful science. Too bad that is so often abused.
       Jerry




----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Muckerheide, James" <jimm at WPI.EDU>
To: <jjcohen at prodigy.net>; <garyi at trinityphysics.com>; <radsafe at radlab.nl>
Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2005 6:03 PM
Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] NAS "impartiality"


True Jerry.  But it's still an "art" when it comes to being able to any
results you want IF you want biased results.

On your second point, it seems unlikely that they can be "good scientists and
well-intended people, but ...ignore or summarily dismiss as "unconvincing"
all the studies supporting hormesis, and/or existence of a dose threshold
without offering any cogent rationale for doing so."  It seems obvious that
they are not good scientists or are not well-intentioned people.  Do you have
another alternative?

Regards, Jim Muckerheide



-----Original Message-----
From: jjcohen at prodigy.net [mailto:jjcohen at prodigy.net]
Sent: Thu 6/30/2005 7:46 PM
To: Muckerheide, James; garyi at trinityphysics.com; radsafe at radlab.nl
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] NAS "impartiality"
 
Jim, Gary, Eric & anyone else who cares,
    I disagree. Epidemiology, properly done, can be a science that produces
useful insights. It is a science that doesn't provide certainty, but deals
in statistics and probability which can be very useful in evaluating disease
incidence.
    I am willing to concede that the NAS panel members may be  good
scientists and well-intended people, but what bothers me is how they can
ignore or summarily dismiss as "unconvincing" all the studies supporting
hormesis, and/or existence of a dose threshold without offering any cogent
rationale for doing so. Just a cursory review of the RSH summary document
shows that they are ignoring an awful lot of information. Certainly, they
are not obligated to accept it, but it would be nice to at least get some
reasonable explanation on why they reject that information
Jerry.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Muckerheide, James" <jimm at WPI.EDU>
To: <garyi at trinityphysics.com>; <jjcohen at prodigy.net>; <radsafe at radlab.nl>
Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2005 3:53 PM
Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] NAS "impartiality"


Right Gary,

As they say: "Epidemiology is more an art than a science."

Regards, Jim Muckerheide


-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl on behalf of garyi at trinityphysics.com
Sent: Fri 7/1/2005 4:40 PM
To: jjcohen at prodigy.net; radsafe at radlab.nl
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] NAS "impartiality"

No, I think your right.  The head of the committee was an epidemiologist,
right?  That
should throw up a red flag on any study of low level radiation.

-Gary Isenhower

On 30 Jun 2005 at 9:54,  <jjcohen at prodigy.net> wrote:

> Is anyone familiar with how the National Academy of Science (NAS)
> selects members for its study panels? It seems to me that by judicious
> selection of members, almost any predetermined conclusion can be
> attained. The expert committees can reference or ignore any material
> they choose. They typically compile a massive volume summarizing what
> they have chosen to review and formulate conclusions supposedly based
> upon their review. Maybe I just don't get it, but from the few NAS
> studies I have attempted to understand, it was almost impossible to
> track how the conclusions were reached from the material reviewed. I
> suspect the whole process is largely arbitrary, but perhaps someone
> can straighten me out. Jerry Cohen
> _______________________________________________ You are currently
> subscribed to the radsafe mailing list radsafe at radlab.nl
>
> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and
> understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
> http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html
>
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
> visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/


_______________________________________________
You are currently subscribed to the radsafe mailing list radsafe at radlab.nl

Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the
RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html

For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit:
http://radlab.nl/radsafe/