LNT/Radon "Debate"

[JMUCKERHEIDE@delphi.com]

James Presley notes Dr. Cohen's remark in a "snippet":

>      "   What Strom and other objectors seem to be saying is ......
>      ............ 
>      I would call what these people are doing simply "name calling" which 
>      is a very childish behavior. "
<snip>
>      As an objective observer, I have a couple of comments on the debate.
<snip>      
>      However, regarding the quoted snippet of a RADSAFE post above.
>      
>      1. Is Dr. Cohen's opening remark consistent with his closing remark ?
>      Personally, I think not.

This remark on its face has some of the context that is ascribed. However, it
is more accurate to understand the remark from the history of Dr. Cohen's
substantive work being simply dismissed by "labeling" (which I see as his use
of the term "name calling") the work as the "ecological fallacy" (and even to
list the "problems" by irrelevant reference to a source), without any seeming
effort or ability to understand the science and the data, nor to address Dr.
Cohen's responses to all of those identified, unsubstantiated, "problems".
Since Dr. Strom didn't do any "name calling" of Dr. Cohen, I suggest that in
fairness Dr. Cohen was responding to the kind of non-technical, unscientific,
dismissive "criticism" which has become standard over the last 8 years in
defensive response to his work. 

>      I guess this is why a journal may be a more "objective" medium than 
>      RADSAFE for serious debate as, I would assume, that any emotional 
>      statements would be "filtered out".

We must always assume that email is not a "technical journal" forum. It is
closer to a phone call or a "hallway conversation" (which we all know can
often contain a lot more truth than we get from the podium). 

But even further, we can also know that what passes as science in technical
journals has its own limitations when pretense of "scientific objectivity" is
simply a way to enable politically and non-scientifically motivated results of 
those who control the platform to stand by simply ignoring factual evidence.
Of course even here there is a deafening silence in the "debate" when factual
evidence is presented, interfering with the political and religious arguments. 

It's telling when substantive work like Dr. Cohen's, and others, must go thru
the fires of hell to get published, when people like Wing can get junk-science 
published in JAMA and EPA can get yet another nonsense mathematical projection 
from miner data published on "a moments notice" in J Nat Cancer Inst to
"prove" there are 14,000 deaths/year from residential radon (and with a
national media campaign to get the results out to the world); not to mention
thousands of "public service announcements" warning the public of residential
radon, fostering unjustified public fear of radiation ("while the truth is
still putting on its boots") while not only Dr. Cohen's data is ignored, but
significant exposures to high radon dose populations (to 1000 times
residential levels are conspicuously ignored). 

>      Sorry, Professor Cohen, not meaning to single you out, but I couldn't 
>      help commenting on this subject.
>      I am actually leaning towards your side in this debate.
>      
>      James Presley
>      Health Physicist
>      jpresley@synapse.net

Thanks.

Regards, Jim Muckerheide
jmuckerheide@delphi.com