Slesin ./. Leszczynski (Allgemein)

Dariusz, Sonntag, 30.01.2011, 13:08 (vor 4857 Tagen) @ H. Lamarr

I have noticed your discussion about my involvement in the 2011 IARC evaluation of the carcinogenic potential of mobile phone radiation, about my criticism of Hardell re-evaluation study and about the Louis Slesin’s comments criticizing me in his ”Short Take” GIGO-story. Here are few answers from my side and my view-point.

• I have received the formal e-mail invitation to the IARC Working Group on 22.09.2010 at 16:27 (Finnish time).
• I am also aware of the composition of the Working Group. It is still not published but, as specified by IARC, it will be published on the Monograph 102 website before the meeting in Lyon. I am not at liberty to reveal the names before IARC does it itself. However, what I can comment is that, at this point in time and to me, it looks like IARC has done relatively good job because in the Working Group will be represented whole scale of views. There are scientists who consider health effects as unlikely, there are scientists who consider that we have already evidence of the health effects, and there are scientists who think that the scientific evidence is still insufficient to reliably support either of the above opinions. This is the starting point for the discussions in Lyon. Where the science will lead the Working Group will be seen in a few months time.

My criticism of Hardell re-evaluation study
• The only and the sole reason for writing this story on my science blog site was the science. I think that I explained sufficiently my reasons for being critical in my blog so I am not repeating it here.
Louis Slesin’s GIGO story
• I think that Louis has gone too far in his search for “conspiracy” everywhere. I think that my blogs are clear proof of my independent opinions that are driven solely by the science and my understanding of it. Therefore Louis’ search for “conspiracy” in the fact that IARC has invited me to the Working Group feels too far fetched. But, of course, this is his opinion and he is entitled to it and might write about whatever “conspiracies” he likes.
• However, what I did not like in Louis’ GIGO-story is the “GIGO” (garbage in garbage out). What I have written in my blog that criticized Hardell’s re-evaluation study, was that whichever way we analyze and re-analyze biased data the data will remain biased and conclusions based on them remain unreliable and biased. What Louis has done, he has said that in my opinion the Hardell re-evaluation is a “garbage” and that I think that Hardell’s data are “garbage”. I consider the “garbage” term as somewhat offensive. In my mind there is a big difference between biased data and garbage data. So, the statement in Louis’ text: “…Garbage in, garbage out. That's what Dariusz Leszczynski thinks of Hardell's new reanalysis…” is not what I think about the re-analysis but it is what Louis “imagines” that I might think. It is a big difference and in this particular case Louis is badly mistaken.

Just out of curiosity, when speaking about Louis, I can mention that I have organized tutorial session for the forthcoming Annual Meeting of BEMS in Halifax, Canada. The session will be about how EMF science is portrayed and presented in the news media. The strong stimulus for organization of such session was for me the reading of news reports following publication of the Interphone study. As one of the speakers for this session I have invited Louis Slesin (before GIGO-story was published). First, for a few weeks he was undecided. Then, after my urging e-mails (after the GIGO story), he finally agreed to come. But then, without any specific reason he has cancelled participation in the session (BEMS would cover the costs of his travel to Halifax). It is pity because speaking in this session would give him the opportunity to present his view. Apparently he thought that the trip in not worth it. Really pity.

, Leszczynski

gesamter Thread:

 RSS-Feed dieser Diskussion

powered by my little forum