Re: Response to Cohen's $2500 offer

["H.Wade Patterson" <hwade@talltown.com>]

JMUCKERHEIDE@delphi.com wrote, in part:

> Reading Bernie's article shows that such presumed correlations
> don't exist. (Although such "presuming" is the sole basis for the LNT.  :-)
> This implies that Pittsburg and the Monongahela Valley, etc, etc. are now
> "clean"?  And the Gulf and Atlantic coasts are "dirty?  :-)  Bernie tested
> correlations that could show such relationships; and his data is available for
> you to test any others you think better. But note the extremely strong
> correlations from this massive database, and the limited effect of actual
> significant changes (like the limited effect of eliminating all of CA, FL, and
> AZ for the effect of retirement migration). He has so much well-defined data
> that he does, and you can, perform credible subset comparisons as "separate
> studies" to test such comparisons (download the data! do it yourself!? don't
> just accept the disinformation of the committed linear model interests!)

Dear Group:
Jim Muckerheide fails to mention that Ken Bogen at LLNL has created a
model, using generally accepted principles of radiobiology, which
PREDICTS Cohen's results.
It would seem that Cohen's results, now confirmed by an INDEPENDENT
MODEL, must be considered valid. If not, what have we come to?

-- 
Best wishes,

Wade

<hwade@talltown.com>

H.Wade Patterson
1116 Linda Lane
Lakeview OR 97630
ph 541 947-4974

I can stand brute force, but brute reason is quite unbearable.  There is
something unfair about it.  It is hitting below the intellect.
Oscar Wilde, The Picture of Dorian Gray, iii, 1891