Re: Criticism/Rebuttal of Alice Stewarts findings of excess

[Andy Hull <hull@mail.sep.bnl.gov>]

Bates,
My reason for not answering you sooner is that I was hesitant about trusting
my recollection (which turned out to be essentially correct).  So, with the
aid of our Research Librarian, who located a Web Site for it at
http:www.medinfo.ufl.edu/year1/bcs/interv/occam.html , the following  more
authoritative information is : Occam's Razor, named after the Franciscan
William of Occam (1285-1349), is also referred to as the Principle of
Parsimony.  At it's core the Razor assumes that simpler explanations are
inherently "better" than complicated ones. The scientific method of
hypothesis generation and testing relies heavily on this powerful tool.
Here are some interpretations:

One should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities
required to explain anything.

One should always choose the simplest explanation of a phenomenon, the one
that requires the fewest leaps of logic.

Don't make unnecessarily complicated assumptions.

Make things as simple as possible-but no simpler. (Albert Einstein)

KISS-Keep it simple stupid.

The principle seems to me to be quite applicable to Stewart's torturous
explanations for why her conclusions which find health effects at low doses
are a better fit to the data than the those based on conventional arguments
which find no effect at the same low doses.
generally accepted ones.  



At 02:59 PM 11/5/97 -0700, you wrote:
>          
>Andy;
>
>Evidently I'm as ignorant as Alice.  "Occam's Razor?"  Please enlighten me.
>
>Bates Estabrooks
>RFETS
>
>______________________________ Reply Separator
_________________________________
>Subject: Criticism/Rebuttal of Alice Stewarts findings of excess
>Author:  Andy Hull <hull%mail.sep.bnl.gov@inet.rfets.gov> at inet
>Date:    11/5/97 3:37 PM
>
>
>Marvin Goldman has asked Otto Raabe if he knows of any published 
>criticism/rebuttal of Alice Stewart"s findings about three decades ago of 
>excess mortality in very young children who were X-rayed in utero.  While I'm 
>not aware of any, I do recall seeing several references to the inability of 
>ABCC/RERF
>investigators to identify a comparable outcome in those who were subject to 
>A-bomb radiations while in utero.  At some occasion, I think while she was 
>testifying at a hearing about the hazards of the radiation emitted during 
>the TMI-2 reactor accident, I heard her provide a very complicated 
>explanation of this. My recollection is that it had to do with the early 
>selective mortality of the weakest of the surviving Japanese childhood 
>population.  I was left, as I have been on other occasions when I've heard 
>her expound on some of her other findings , with the feeling that she has 
>not heard of Occam's razor.
>          
>Andrew P. Hull
>S&EP Div, BNL
>Upton, NY 11973
>Ph. 516-344-4210
>Fax 516-344-3105 
>          
>
>