Re: EMF and cancer

[GACMail98@aol.com]

In a message dated 98-07-07 19:33:38 EDT, goldinem@songs.sce.com (Eric Goldin)
writes:

<< I think the comment made by the APS reviewer wasn't too far out 
      of line.  It is quite common for researchers to produce a report 
      that says "more research is required."  Part of the game.  I've 
      been there. >>

Mike Baker's (mcbaker@lanl.gov) stated, "In light of the recent discussion, I
thought you might find Bob Park's comments interesting.  He makes it sound
like the panel was not as unbiased in their assessment as one would have
hoped."  

Mr. Park merely notes the NIH panel's call for more study was self-serving
("Part of the game" as you put it).  Mr. Baker, however, sees the panel's call
for more study as not merely self-serving but as evidence that the panel
biased its assessment of the data.  I.e., the panel ignored or distorted
relevant evidence to create a need for more study (and opportunities for
funding) when one does not exist.  Sounds like the panel is being accused of
dishonesty, not mere gamesmanship.

Glenn
GACMail98@aol.com