Re:NJ incident

[mcnaught@lanl.gov (Mike McNaughton)]

The following comments by Wade (#s 2,3,5,7,8) emphasize using unfitted
data. However, comment #9 implies a fit, just not the usual LNT fit. I
agree with the sentiment, but we must have a fit we all agree to. A
cacophony of raw data is like science by anecdote, with each of us
emphasizing our own favorite example.

>2.  Refutation is unnecessary. "Fitting" to a model is unnecessary. An
>informed public can judge for themselves.
>
>3.  The key to an informed public, and an informed legislative, judicial
>and executive government is knowledge of the actual unfitted
>experimental observations.
>
>5.  Honesty and ethics demand that a clear description be given of
>actual observations without "fitting."
>
>7.  It is impossible to over-emphasize the importance of cognizance of
>actual (unfitted) human response to radiation.
>
>8.  The present perceptions of the public, of professionals, and of
>officials are a direct result of being unaware of actual observations of
>human response to radiation. The present perceptions are a result of
>seeing the "fitted" data rather than actual data.
>
>9.  A non-biased description of actual observations is that at first the
>incidence of human cancer decreases with increasing exposure to
>radiation, then reaches a minimum, and finally begins to rise.


"Shlala gashle" (Zulu greeting, meaning "Stay safe")
mike (mcnaught@LANL.GOV)