[ RadSafe ] NAS "impartiality"

[John Jacobus]

Could it be that the hormesis studies are, indeed,
unconvincing.  Either you accept epidemiology as a
science, or not.  Either you accept the judgement of
the report or you don't.  

The real issue is what are the policies.  Will the
findings of this report result in more restrictive
legislation?  Will the findings result in no future
nuclear power plant constructions?  I think not, but I
may be wrong.

--- jjcohen at prodigy.net wrote:

> 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.
> 
> . . .

+++++++++++++++++++
"Every now and then a man's mind is stretched by a new idea and never shrinks back to its original proportion." -- Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

-- John
John Jacobus, MS
Certified Health Physicist
e-mail:  crispy_bird at yahoo.com

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com