[ RadSafe ] Re: "-authors do not report-" data refuting theirconclusions!

[John Jacobus]

I am not sure of your point, but I am not surprised
that the risks, or benefits, at low doses were not of
concern in the past.  I don't think that doses below
0.1 Sv are present significant risks or benefits.  I
admire you perseverance.  

With the question of bias I think that you will find
it in science, as science is a human endeavor.  The
saving grace is that, as you point out, there is
verification.  Certainly, different models show
different relationships things.  One thing that I
believe is that biology is not like physics.  When we
extrapolate from large doses to low doses, you have
cell repair, "bystander effects," and other
interesting stuff going on.  It is possible that there
may not be an adequate model for low dose, low-dose
rate effects.  

However, I think that bias is dangerous when you only
select those studies that support your view and ignore
others that do not.  As I have been trying to point
out, the McGregor and Land paper of 1977 certainly
does not support a hormetic effect.  Second, you
cannot pick out one piece of data from a paper and
ignore the rest.  That is poor science.  Do you agree?

--- "Fritz A. Seiler" <faseiler at nmia.com> wrote:
> Hi All,
> 
> As a physicist when I joined the then ITRI (now
> LRRI) 
> in 1980, I dared - after a while at my new job -
> make
> the suggestion that not doing any experiments at low
> 
> exposures does inflate the experimental data set
> with
> measurements that are in favor of the LNT.  The cold
> reaction of the radiobiologists then made me feel as
> if I had uttered a string of obscenities.  I can
> still
> hear the more polite ones saying: "Testing down
> there
> where we know that there is nothing?!"  "There is
> just
> nothing going on down there, and DOE would not let
> us
> waste animals and money on such fruitless
> duplications
> of effort anyway."
> I soon earned a reputation as an arrogant physicist
> who
> wanted to duplicate measurements already done, did
> not
> trust their older measurements and so I then kept
> mostly
> quiet on such matters, started to give talks at
> meetings
> and to publish papers in the open literature about
> the 
> Scientific Method.  From this thread, I can see that
> the
> "doing of good science" is a topic that is not
> generally
> agreed on in these mailings. 
> So here I go again! Simply stated, "Good Science" is
> an
> epistemological process of model prediction followed
> by 
> an experimental verification, and that has nothing
> to do 
> with bias.  A bias comes only in when we decide not
> to 
> verify for reasons of an unfavorable model
> prediction...
> ....See my comments above and those by J. Jacobus
> below!!
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Fritz
> 
> 
> PS: Some of our papers along that line of thinking:
> 
> 	Seiler, F.A., & Alvarez, J.L. (1994). The Use of
> the
> 		Scientific Method in Risk Analysis. Technology:
> 		Journal of the Franklin Institute, 331A, 53-58.
> 
> And by request of the editors of HERA, we put a
> treatise on
> the Scientific Method in our 'radon' paper:
> 
> 	Seiler, F.A., and J.L. Alvarez, “Is the ’Ecological
> 
> 		Fallacy’ a Fallacy?” Hum. Ecol. Risk Assess., 
> 		6, 921-941, 2000.
> 
> 
>
*****************************************************
> Fritz A. Seiler, Ph.D.
> Sigma Five Consulting:          Private:
> P.O. Box 1709                   P.O. Box 437
> Los Lunas, NM 87031             Tomé, NM 87060
> Tel.:      505-866-5193         Tel. 505-866-6976
> Fax:       505-866-5197         USA
>
*****************************************************
> 
>
*****************************************************
> "This is the hour when democracy must justify
> itself by capacity  for effective decision, or risk
> destruction or disintegration. Europe is dotted
> with the ruins of right decisions taken too late."
> 
> "America's Responsibility in the Current Crisis"
> Manifesto of the Christian Realists. May, 1940.
>
*******************************************************
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl
> [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On
> Behalf Of John Jacobus
> Sent: Friday, March 11, 2005 2:07 PM
> To: howard long
> Cc: radsafe
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Re: "-authors do not
> report-" data refuting
> theirconclusions!
> 
> 
> So, you say we should look for hormesis?  Would that
> not lead bias the analysis?
> 
> 
> 

+++++++++++++++++++
"A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy
enough people to make it worth the effort." Herm Albright

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


		
__________________________________ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Yahoo! Mail - Easier than ever with enhanced search. Learn more. 
http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250