Re: Journals use of Wing et al "study"

["Michael C. Baker" <mcbaker@lanl.gov>]

>
>> 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.
>


When a journalist takes on the his role of educating the public, as this
article apparantly is supposed to do since it has little "news" in it, a
journalist's obligations are just as great if not greater since his or 
her readers are unlikely to have the background/training to criticaly 
read his article.  That is why a response from the reporter of "hey, I'm
no scietist" is inadequate.  I would feel differently if the article 
had been something to the effect of "scientists announce greater health
impacts due to radiation."  But Mr. Ith made an unqualified statement 
that TMI resulted in a rise of leukemia.

Mike Baker
	
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael C. Baker, Ph.D.            Safeguards Science and Technology
                                   Nonproliferation and International 
                                           Security Division
email:  mcbaker@lanl.gov             Los Alamos National Laboratory
Phone:  (505) 667-7334               P.O. Box 1663, Mail Stop E540 	
Fax:    (505) 665-4433                 Los Alamos, NM 87545 (USA)
---------------------------------------------------------------------