Re: EMF and cancer

[GACMail98@aol.com]

The NIH panel reached certain conclusions in its assessment of the cancer
risks from EMF.  Mr. Baker disagrees with those conclusions and suggests
(rather unambiguously) that the panel biased its assessment to justify a call
for more funding of its members for research.  Mr. Goldin states that such
calls are just "part of the game," but confuses merely calling for more
funding (probably okay) with misrepresenting data to justify a call for
funding (definitely not okay).

It is not the possibility that the panel is biased that is disturbing.  One
can be biased and still objectively evaluate the evidence.  In fact, one can
be biased and still make honest mistakes in judgment.  Rather, what's
disturbing is the accusation that the panel would ignore or distort evidence
in furtherance of that bias.

In my opinion the NIH panel, its conclusions, Mr. Baker's opinions, and Mr.
Goldin's observations are worthy of discussion within RADSAFE, which is what
we are doing.  I don't understand what about this discussion makes you
incredulous or who has been disparaged other than the NIH panelists.  

Glenn
GACMail98@aol.com

In a message dated 98-07-08 11:52:43 EDT, Steven.Rima@DOEGJPO.COM (Steven
Rima) writes:

<<  Glenn,
      
      What do these types of messages add to RADSAFE? When one RADSAFER 
      expresses an OPINION, I find it incredulous that some want to see an 
      "accusation" of anything by over 1500 members of the RADSAFE bulletin 
      board.
      
     When a government funded/sponsored organization such as NIH "votes" to 
     determine a scientific outcome, I find that wholly different than 
     individual members of an electronic bulletin board expressing a 
     personal opinion on something. NIH wrote a press release, which to me 
     invites scrutiny and discussion. To my knowledge, RADSAFE has never 
     put out a press release, or even represented itself as any type of 
     expert panel. It is merely a voluntary electronic bulletin board where 
     someone may ask/answer questions, gain information and yes, express 
     personal opinions. Trying to compare the two is certainly an 
     apples/oranges comparison at best. I don't believe that disparaging 
     someone who expresses an opinion via RADSAFE adds anything to the 
     discussion.
      
      If you or anyone else on this listserver can HONESTLY claim to be 
      completely and wholly unbiased with respect to radiation related 
      topics, I'd certainly like to hear from you. While I would like to be, 
      I can't make such a claim myself.
      
      Steven D. Rima, CHP
      Manager, Health Physics and Industrial Hygiene
      MACTEC-ERS, LLC
      steven.rima@doegjpo.com
      
      Obviously, the above is my personal opinion!
 
 
 ______________________________ Reply Separator
_________________________________
 Subject: Re: EMF and cancer
 Author:  GACMail98@aol.com at Internet
 Date:    7/8/98 12:54 AM
 
 
 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
 
 
 ----------------------- Headers --------------------------------
 Return-Path: <Steven.Rima@DOEGJPO.COM>
 Received: from  relay07.mx.aol.com (relay07.mail.aol.com [172.31.109.7]) by
air12.mail.aol.com (v45.16) with SMTP; Wed, 08 Jul 1998 11:52:43 -0400
 Received: from GJPOMAIL.DOEGJPO.COM ([192.149.55.36])
 	  by relay07.mx.aol.com (8.8.8/8.8.5/AOL-4.0.0)
 	  with SMTP id LAA07359 for <GACMail98@aol.com>;
 	  Wed, 8 Jul 1998 11:52:39 -0400 (EDT)
 Received: from ccMail by GJPOMAIL.DOEGJPO.COM
   (IMA Internet Exchange 2.11 Enterprise) id 000292A2; Wed, 8 Jul 1998
09:54:48 -0600
 Mime-Version: 1.0
 Date: Wed, 8 Jul 1998 09:54:39 -0600
 Message-ID: <000292A2.3388@DOEGJPO.COM>
 Return-receipt-to: Steven.Rima@DOEGJPO.COM (Steven Rima)
 From: Steven.Rima@DOEGJPO.COM (Steven Rima)
 Subject: Re[2]: EMF and cancer
 To: Multiple recipients of list <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>,
         GACMail98@aol.com
 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
 Content-Description: cc:Mail note part
 
  >>