[ RadSafe ] NAS "impartiality"

[John Jacobus]

So, are you saying that scientific epidemiology can be
manipulated?  I would imagine that can also apply to
those who purport to show beneficial effects.  Do you
think that is possible?

--- howard long <hflong at pacbell.net> wrote:

> Scientific epidemiology differs from political
> epidemiology in trying to disprove 
> one's own beliefs. Ergo, the null hypothesis.
>  
> That attitude can be judged by any skeptical layman,
> John
>  
> Howard Long
> 
> "Muckerheide, James" <jimm at wpi.edu> wrote:
> 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
> 
> . . .

+++++++++++++++++++
"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