AW: AW: AW: [ RadSafe ] DNA Damage and Oxydative Processes

[Rainer.Facius at dlr.de]

John:

 

Being newbie in this kind of exchange, I possibly have answered questions in my recent replies which may not have been addressed to me. 

 

In my first post to Eric (Fr 08.07.2005 18:33) I tried to demonstrate that BEIR-VII did worse (in my view much worse) than ignoring or denigrating incommoding peer reviewed knowledge. I quoted two important studies and described the steps whereby every reader can verify by himself that the data in these studies did not qualify for an analysis in terms of the LNT postulate in the dose range relevant for radiation protection. I furthermore claimed that BEIR-VII did exactly that.

 

I interpreted your subsequent comment <Of course, you have read the BEIR VII report. Right?> as an insinuation - probably wrongly so - that I alleged this misrepresentation without having verified that claim. 

 

In answering (Sa 09.07.2005 02:57) this (perceived) allegation, I quoted from the BEIR-VII report passages which demonstrated that they did exactly that, analyse the data in terms of the LNT postulate (I would add here without of course being able to demonstrate this too: and in terms of LNT only).

 

Your subsequent allegation <Are you selecting only those examples that statisfy you claims and leaving other out?> prompted my preceding statement (Sa 09.07.2005 12:07) that in fact I did select these examples due to their paramount relevance for the problem BEIR-VII has been commissioned to address. I challenged you to prove otherwise by asking for quotes of other relevant studies which had been evaluated by BEIR VII and which do support the LNT postulate.

 

The Cardis et al. 1995 'analysis' of their data indeed has been challenged, by 

Schillaci ME, Comments on ..., Radiation Research 145(1996)647-48. 

I urge you to read this short note.

 

Finally, the table in the Nature paper lists 15 tokens of scientific misconduct - in increasing order of severity. Those numbers which I chose, arguably might pertain to the treatment by BEIR VII of those two examples.

 

Whenever you feel unqualified to check statements of scientific truth by yourself (and that applies to all of us given the ocean of knowledge and our constraints), remain wary, watch out for dissenters, ask them for facts which you can check (there always are), and probe their arguments by commonsense.

 

Regards, Rainer


________________________________

Von: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl im Auftrag von John Jacobus
Gesendet: Sa 09.07.2005 17:21
An: radsafe at radlab.nl
Betreff: Re: AW: AW: [ RadSafe ] DNA Damage and Oxydative Processes



Rainer,
I apology for not being clear in my response.  

<...>