Journals use of Wing et al "study"

[John Moulder <jmoulder@post.its.mcw.edu>]

> It's plain that Mr. Ith's ariticle conflicts with the health physics
> orthodoxy, and many in the health physics community have a low opinion of
> journalists as a group, but other than that what exactly is the problem?  

The problem is that the newspaper article appears to be based on a single
"scientific" article, and totally ignores commentary on that article,
contrary views, and all other relevant information.

In addition, the cited article does not appear to actually support what
the newspaper said (wing et al does not claim a statistically-significant
dose-related rise in leukemia at TMI)
> 
> Is it Mr. Ith's failure to critically review the secondary reference, i.e.,
> the NIH ariticle?  

The Wing et al article is the primary reference.  

> Mr. Ith reported the position of the LSA, a national public
> health organization.  

Did he?  What I've seen so far only says that he found reference to the
wing et al paper on the LSA site.  I've seen nothing that suggests that
LSA has endorsed the conclusions of the study.  

> The LSA position was supported by the NIH peer-reviewed
> article.  Mr. Ith is no more obligated to review the NIH article than a health
> physicist is required to review the references in a National Council on
> Radiation Protection position paper.  Though, in both cases, it would be a
> good idea.

Try that one again.  If a health physicist publishes an article based on
articles referenced in an NCRP position paper, he/she most certainly is
expected to have read, reviewed and evaluated those papers.  A reputable
scientist does not base conclusions on secondary sources, I see no reason
why a journalists obligation should be any less.

> Is it the substance of Mr. Ith's article that the NIH article concludes that
> previous studies underreported cancer incidence near the Three Mile Island
> nuclear plant?  

First, it's not an "NIH article".  NIH has nothing to do with writing the
article, and may have had nothing to do with the review.

Second, Wing et al does not claim that cancer was underreported.  They
have no new data.  They "reanalyze" existing data, and find correlations
(possibly non-significant correlations) that other did not, and still do
not, find in the same data.

I'd strongly suggest that everyone interested in this go back and read the
paper, and the commentary that went along with it, and the letters
that it generated.