Jump to content

Talk:Bernard Cohen (physicist): Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Qwertie (talk | contribs)
50 edits
clarified
Qwertie (talk | contribs)
50 edits
Line 73: Line 73:
== Suspected misrepresentation ==
== Suspected misrepresentation ==


The intro says "Cohen was a staunch opponent of the so-called Linear no-threshold model [...]" which was "considered in the 1980s and 1990s a self-marginalizing posture"; considered by whom? I've been reading his book online and he makes it clear in [http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/chapter5.html Chapter 5] that he is simply trying to convey the conclusions of scientific organizations (BEIR, UNSCEAR, NCRP) that are tasked with studying radiation hazards. Either the intro is misleading, or Cohen is lying about their findings (which I very much doubt). Relevant book quote: "both UNSCEAR[12] and NCRP[19] estimate that risks at low dose and low dose rate are lower than those obtained from the straight line relationship by a factor of 2 to 10. For example, if 1 million mrem gives a cancer risk of 0.78, the risk from 1 mrem is not 0.78 chances in a million as stated previously, but only 1/2 to 1/10 of that [....] The 1980 BEIR Committee accepted the concept of reduced risk at low dose and used it in its estimates. The 1990 BEIR Committee acknowledges the effect but states that there is not enough information available to quantify it and, therefore, presents results ignoring it but with a footnote stating that these results should be reduced."
The intro says "Cohen was a staunch opponent of the so-called Linear no-threshold model [...]" which was "considered in the 1980s and 1990s a self-marginalizing posture"; considered by whom? I've been reading his book online and he makes it clear in [http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/chapter5.html Chapter 5] that he is simply trying to convey the conclusions of scientific organizations (BEIR, UNSCEAR, NCRP) that are tasked with studying radiation hazards. Either the intro is misleading, or Cohen is lying about their findings (which I very much doubt, first because the book makes a strong case, and second because if he was a liar, wouldn't other scientists accuse him of being one? If I Google "Bernard Cohen accused of lying in his book on nuclear power", google responds "It looks like there aren't many great matches for your search".) Relevant book quote: "both UNSCEAR[12] and NCRP[19] estimate that risks at low dose and low dose rate are lower than those obtained from the straight line relationship by a factor of 2 to 10. For example, if 1 million mrem gives a cancer risk of 0.78, the risk from 1 mrem is not 0.78 chances in a million as stated previously, but only 1/2 to 1/10 of that [....] The 1980 BEIR Committee accepted the concept of reduced risk at low dose and used it in its estimates. The 1990 BEIR Committee acknowledges the effect but states that there is not enough information available to quantify it and, therefore, presents results ignoring it but with a footnote stating that these results should be reduced."


Later it is said that "Professor Cohen stated [...] that low levels of radiation can have beneficial health effects" but the quote afterward from Cohen does not support this claim. Cohen's book doesn't mention hormesis, either, nor does it ever suggest that low doses of radiation are either beneficial or harmless. If Cohen ever expressed a belief in hormesis (I doubt it, but I can't read the two offline references for this claim), it would mean that he had changed his mind after publishing his book. [[User:Qwertie|Qwertie]] ([[User talk:Qwertie|talk]]) 22:05, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
Later it is said that "Professor Cohen stated [...] that low levels of radiation can have beneficial health effects" but the quote afterward from Cohen does not support this claim. Cohen's book doesn't mention hormesis, either, nor does it ever suggest that low doses of radiation are either beneficial or harmless. If Cohen ever expressed a belief in hormesis (I doubt it, but I can't read the two offline references for this claim), it would mean that he had changed his mind after publishing his book. [[User:Qwertie|Qwertie]] ([[User talk:Qwertie|talk]]) 22:05, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Revision as of 22:25, 28 October 2020

WikiProject iconBiography: Science and Academia Start‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the science and academia work group.
WikiProject iconPhysics: Biographies Start‑class Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
This article is supported by Biographies Taskforce.

Vote for Deletion

This article survived a Vote for Deletion. The discussion can be found here. -Splash 05:55, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

POV

It shouldn't be deleted, but an actual biography should be put in place! Simesa 18:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

404

The reference "[1]" to "Cohen's fallacy", http://radlab.nl/radsafe/archives/0202/msg00329.html, goes to a website that no longer exists. Brief searching has not revealed an alternative source.

There is a wayback machine copy from 2007 at: http://web.archive.org/web/20070927041759/http://radlab.nl/radsafe/archives/0202/msg00329.html

The reference "[2]" to the journal Health Physics does not point to the abstract mentioned.

Thus the lede of the first topic ("... debates ... are well known ...") in this supposedly biographical article has become nothing but badly referenced POV. Snezzy (talk) 04:13, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Passing of BL Cohen

I've found the obituary for BL Cohen here. Regards, ConradMayhew (talk) 22:55, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. Pittsburgh Tribune-Review has a longer one [1]; I'll look at it later to see if there's anything with which to supplement the WP page, unless someone does it first. --Old Moonraker (talk) 06:38, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Bernard Cohen (physicist). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:44, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bernard Cohen (physicist). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:53, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bernard Cohen (physicist). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:01, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Suspected misrepresentation

The intro says "Cohen was a staunch opponent of the so-called Linear no-threshold model [...]" which was "considered in the 1980s and 1990s a self-marginalizing posture"; considered by whom? I've been reading his book online and he makes it clear in Chapter 5 that he is simply trying to convey the conclusions of scientific organizations (BEIR, UNSCEAR, NCRP) that are tasked with studying radiation hazards. Either the intro is misleading, or Cohen is lying about their findings (which I very much doubt, first because the book makes a strong case, and second because if he was a liar, wouldn't other scientists accuse him of being one? If I Google "Bernard Cohen accused of lying in his book on nuclear power", google responds "It looks like there aren't many great matches for your search".) Relevant book quote: "both UNSCEAR[12] and NCRP[19] estimate that risks at low dose and low dose rate are lower than those obtained from the straight line relationship by a factor of 2 to 10. For example, if 1 million mrem gives a cancer risk of 0.78, the risk from 1 mrem is not 0.78 chances in a million as stated previously, but only 1/2 to 1/10 of that [....] The 1980 BEIR Committee accepted the concept of reduced risk at low dose and used it in its estimates. The 1990 BEIR Committee acknowledges the effect but states that there is not enough information available to quantify it and, therefore, presents results ignoring it but with a footnote stating that these results should be reduced."

Later it is said that "Professor Cohen stated [...] that low levels of radiation can have beneficial health effects" but the quote afterward from Cohen does not support this claim. Cohen's book doesn't mention hormesis, either, nor does it ever suggest that low doses of radiation are either beneficial or harmless. If Cohen ever expressed a belief in hormesis (I doubt it, but I can't read the two offline references for this claim), it would mean that he had changed his mind after publishing his book. Qwertie (talk) 22:05, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bernard_Cohen_(physicist)&oldid=985949772"