Fwd: Re: Radon and lung cancer

[David Scherer <scherer@uiuc.edu>]

Bob Hearn said:

>>Is this a new PC version of science? If "persuasion" and "not procedural
>>rules" determine the product of science, it appears that the approach of
>>Caldicotte et al are right on target! 

No.  This is the way it has always been in science.  It took centuries for
Gallileo, Copernicus and Nweton to be accepted.  Einstein _never_ won the
Nobel for the theory of relativity (he won it for the photoelectric effect)
because it was not accepted as proven by prominent physicists until the
50's.  On the other hand, I remember all the excitement over cold fusion a
few years ago.  No one has ever shown the errors in their data; it's just
that others have not been able to replicated the results.  Let the process
work.  The case control studies will be done.  Let's see whether they
confirm Cohen's work.  What's the hurry?  The universe isn't going anywhere.

As far as the PC thing goes, there has always been a difference between
science and popular-science.  Public forums are not doing science, but
public policy.  Hopefully scientists take their time and hold their
conclusions as tentative.  On the other hand, this list looks for a
definitive answer before the year is out.  My concern is that we are
becoming part of the rabble instead of maintaining some degree of
objectivity.  The question of how radiation affects health is a SCIENTIFIC
question.  The LNT model is a tentative model used for SOCIETAL purposes
(i.e. radiation protection poicy).  There may be time pressure to address
the latter, but not for the prior.

>>Hve we not lapsed into a consideration of semantics, however, when we say
>>that "burden of proof" is significantly different from "weight of the
>>evidence"?

"Burden of proof" suggests that one explanation is "accepted" or at least
preferred.  Others must overcome that preferrence.  In a weighing process
one takes all the evidence at the same time, not in a sequence were later
results must overcome the preferrence of earlier.  One not only looks at
the conclusions of each study, but the power of the methods and the
strenght of the data.  For example, I have seen papers that take
measurements of the speed of light (c) from the Renaissance until today and
suggest that it may be changing.  When I look at the methods used 500 y
age, I give little weight to the conclusion that c is changing.  If c is
changing, we will know this from several centuries of modern, precise
measurements.  No need to form a conclusion now based on the "proof"
offered.  I see a similar situation with regard to radon and other
radiation bioeffects.

Regards,
Dave Scherer
scherer@uiuc.edu