Re: Wing: Descriptive Epidemiology by Any Other Name...

[sweis <sweis@roadrunner.com>]

At 04:09 PM 2/27/97 -0600, you wrote:
>Has anyone actually read Wing's study? I've been reading the many notes 
>from RADSAFERs referring to his work as "garbage" and "junk", but I 
>haven't read of anyone actually analyzing what he did. It may be junk and 
>garbage, but it would be really useful if someone could tell us, 
>specifically, what the study's shortcomings are.
>
I completely concur.

The first thing a scientist needs is a an open mind. It seems a lot of you
folks have some preconcieved notions that prevent critical thinking. It
seems that anytime anyone questions the radsafe scripture there is an
immediate emotional condemnation.

Wing's study maybe "junk" but at least he's published some data. He may be
wrong but at least he is doing some science. I can't decide who is more
irrational, emotional, and non-scientific, the radsafe community or the
antinuke community.

Regards
Christopher Beyer
please send all corespondence to cjb@nets.com