Re: Ron Kathrens comment on indoor rado

[JMUCKERHEIDE@delphi.com]

Ron,

3 points:

I still agree with your "scientific point". But it's still not relevant to
results correlations. There is no systematic bias to affect Cohen's results.
An "open" mind is not an "empty" mind from review of analyses and potential
significance to the results.  If you need a quantitiative analysis to find
this relatively obvious result, then do so.  But, it seemed unlikely you see a 
real problem, so my response to mischaracterizing this as a serious scientific 
question for the audience, to foster doubt, follows what's being done by
NCRP/BEIR supporters in similar "non-science" ways, to prevent considering
this work. Or, if you were serious, you could provide a basis for potential
significance to the analysis. My conclusion stands. Otherwise this is like
NCRP/BEIR's unfounded aspersions, for EPA? to preclude serious scientific
review - for questionable, non-science, "rad policy" purposes. Whether or not
that's your intent, that's the result. 

Your "distress" re NCRP 121 doesn't address content, like, eg, it states that
it 'applies to the range where the data is linear', so it doesn't apply to low 
doses (except to presume linear response at low doses). Some "contributor"
feels better and is not "blameworthy" for the results; and other "fine print"
(that's a whole other case that should be made). But the report is only
intended and used to support "policies" to justify $100s billions in public
money for 15 mrem/year cleanup, etc. Your point that it is "good" because "it
reached agreement" (by a selected group governed by the council) doesn't make
it technically credible, only politically acceptable. (NCRP does a lot good
scientific work!  As long as it doesn't affect the "right answer" on the
"linear no-threshold hypothesis".  :-) 

Finally, you don't respond to substance, but the "chilling effect" of my
stating 'in public' common knowledge from 25 years of discussions meetings, at 
conferences, in the HPS Newsletter, etc etc; recounting simple written
experience of senior scientists (see eg Walinder), gov't officials, NCRP,
ICRP, UNSCEAR, BEIR members, and others in rad research, at Oak Ridge and
Argonne, Los Alamos, etc; suppressing work, and even reporting completed work
(Frigerio to NSWS to Luckey); (with many [confidential] messages from people
who experience such jobs/career fear, and witness others' positions/careers
affected for considering the research evidence; and recognizing the negative
effect of seeking:  grants, tenure, research and program funding, and awards
and appointments, including that NCRP appointment, that accounts for "success" 
in this business, is a LOT LESS "chilling to science" than the fact of those
threats on the "science community". (I'm sure there must be some, but I don't
know of any independent scientist or analyst that supports the linear
hypothesis!  but do know many *dependent* scientists/analysts against it,
while knowing the risk to their positions and careers.) Complaining about my
non-influence is somewhat disingenuous in the face of these well-known
influences for funding and careers. (It will be interesting to see as this
plays out who really work from fear, and who work to take advantage.) 

Regards, Jim

> I am sorry, Jim, that you still do not get the scientific point, so I will
> try again:  The folks in Bernie's study did not remain in their homes 24
> hours a day, never venturing outside!  And, of course, the measurements
> themselves that he cites are really not precise and accurate indications of
> indoor radon levels. Evaluation of the radon levels could just as easily
> support Bernie's findings as not; remember, we must keep an open mind and
> NOT prejudge. 
> 
> But even more so, I am distressed that that you do not get the other and
> perhaps more important point,and continue to choose to vituperate those with
> whom you disagree. (Could this be a case of argument weak, yell like h---?)
> In particular, as the Chairman of the NCRP Comittee that prepared NCRP
> Report 121, I take strong exception to your comments and allegations that
> the report "promulgates disinformation that isn't science".  I believe that
> my Committee represented a broad spectrum of scientific viewpoint and
> considerable expertise, and prepared a report that is scientifically sound
> and represents a distillation of the various scientific opinions of the
> Committee members that included consideration of the comments received from
> the Council.  This is as it should be.  And,although I am not now nor have I
> ever been a member of NCRP, I nonetheless find your ad hominem comments
> regarding NCRP personally insulting, degrading, unprofessional and totally
> inappropriate, whether on Radsafe or elsewhere.  Perhaps in addition to
> defending his research , you would do well to emulate the gentlemanly
> behavior and scientific integrity characteristic of Professor Cohen. Ad
> hominem attacks have no place in science, and cast a decided chill on
> freedom of expression.
> 
> Ron Kathren
> rkathren@tricity.WSU.edu
> 
> >Schoenhofer wrote: