Flawed Epidemiology

The Un-science of Epidemiology
or
How to talk rubbish and still keep your job

The use of crap science is not limited to radiation protection agencies. This campaign has involved us in strongly polarised debate with epidemiologists as well. We discuss some of their dodgy analyses here. There is more of this kind of thing in our Compendium, especially Part 3 - studies which are said to demonstrate that there is no unappreciated risk but which have demonstrable flaws or which do, in fact, show an excess risk. (find it through page 2 of the Health effects of low level radiation section - navigation bar on left.)


Next page, with links to further pages on wobbly science


If you are seeing this page full screen (i.e. without a navigation bar on the left) you can't see how the rest of the site is organised.
This Home page link takes you to the index page, which has links to all the topics we discuss on the site [only use it if this page is full screen]
Use the Flawed Epidemiology button to see what else we have to say on this topic.

This page was last updated May 2001