Re[2]: New Steve Wing Study

[gerald_falo_at_chppm7__apgea@chppm-ccmail.apgea.army.mil]

     Jim Muckerheide wrote:
     
     
     "Why is there so little shock and concern about what is happening to 
     science and integrity, with so little reaction? Has the cadre of 
     competent scientists that once made up the labs and DOE/gov't-funded 
     programs been reduced through attrition to a few supporters of 'the 
     any radiation is harmful' philosophy?  though I suppose there may be 
     concern about negative reactions from DOE to taking contrary 
     positions? "
     
     I think the problem is very similar to that of psuedosciece and 
     antiscience in the rest of the world.  Reputable scienctists claim to 
     be to busy or not inclined to respond to the bad science.  Also, 
     health physics such as it is doesn't have the great intellectual pull 
     that draws the public into it.  Nor does health physics have the great 
     communicators like Carl Sagan, Steven Jay Gould, Martin Gardner, and 
     James Randi to debunk the frauds, hoaxes, and mistakes.  Although, I 
     think the recent postings by Otto Rabbe have gone a long way to 
     address this problem, and I for one appreciate his efforts.
     
     Also, the nature of health physics itself does not lend itself to 
     great scientific discussion.  Health physics is an extremely applied 
     science.  The debates over the effects of low level radiation lie 
     outside the realm of health physics.  Professional HP's use the 
     knowledge generated by the research of others for the most part. 
     Professional HP's probably too busy applying their knowledge toward 
     specific problems.  They rely and trust the judgements of others.
     
     If HP's quote without any in depth understanding from BEIR V or any 
     other of the "august" documents of radiation protection, they are 
     easily open to attack of being "parrots".  These attacks can come from 
     both sides of the controversy.
     
     Again, part of the problem is commincation, the prose of BEIR V, BEIR 
     III - where they refute the claims of those who claim radiation is 
     more harmful than thought - is thick and loaded with jargon.  The 
     antinuclear side have easy to read text with simple and leading 
     examples.  Although simple minded analysis is often wrong, it often 
     easier to read and grasp - by definiton.  Where is the balanced 
     scientific treatment of radiation exposures equivalent to those of the 
     antinuclear people.
     
     Simply put, psuedoscience is often clear, simple, flashy, amenable to 
     sound bites, and wrong.  Real science is often obfuscatory, 
     intellectualy complicated, boring, long-winded, and sometimes right.  
     The public has easy access to the publications of the antinuclea 
     people; the anti publications are often very much cheaper than 
     reputable ones.
     
     Well, I've ranted long enough.
     
     Jerry Falo
     jer3ry@aol.com