[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: EMF and cancer
Actually, Glenn, now you are attributing more to my statement than was
actually there. I never stated that they were biased to the point of
ignoring or distorting information only that they were a biased
review panel and this was unfortunate.
When science is done by press release as this panel has done, since by
the information on their web site the actual report is not yet available,
the biases of the people must be questioned. It has been my experience,
without exception, that the study/report behind a press release never
lives up to the conclusions trumpeted in the press release. Maybe when
this report comes out I will be pleasently surprised, but based on all
the other studies I have read on this topic, I doubt it.
I think this thread had lost its usefullness to the RADSFAFE list so
let's let it die. If you insist on having the last word, send me the
email directly.
Michael Baker
At 05:44 PM 7/8/98 -0500, you wrote:
>
>The issue of bias was first raised by Mr. Baker who suggested that the NIH
>panel was biased to the point of ignoring and distorting relevant evidence
>("He makes it sound like the panel was not as unbiased in their assessment as
>one would have hoped" and, quoting B.Park, "the panel chair declared that the
>government should provide research funds for serious-minded scientists --
like
>those on the panel.") Mr. Rima believes that everyone is biased ("I
refuse to
>accept that you or anybody else is truly without bias in this type of
>discussion.")
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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)
---------------------------------------------------------------------