The assumptions of science: A reply to Mabit et al. (2013)

Mabit et al. (2013) misrepresent Parsons and Foster (2011) as a review of the literature on the use of 137Cs for the study of soil erosion, whereas it was a review on the validity of the assumptions upon which the technique rests. Their paper presents no evidence that challenges our conclusion “that...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Earth-science reviews 2013-12, Vol.127, p.308-310
Main Authors: Parsons, A.J., Foster, I.D.L.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
137Cs
cesium
Earth science
radionuclides
Scientific assumptions
soil analysis
Soil erosion
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by
cites
container_end_page 310
container_issue
container_start_page 308
container_title Earth-science reviews
container_volume 127
creator Parsons, A.J.
Foster, I.D.L.
description Mabit et al. (2013) misrepresent Parsons and Foster (2011) as a review of the literature on the use of 137Cs for the study of soil erosion, whereas it was a review on the validity of the assumptions upon which the technique rests. Their paper presents no evidence that challenges our conclusion “that no current rates of soil erosion that are based upon the use of this technique are reliable”. We, therefore, stand by that statement and express our concern that major agencies involved with soil erosion might accept without question both the validity of the 137Cs method and the rates of soil erosion that have been published using it.
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.earscirev.2013.05.011
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_fao_a</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_1465011241</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0012825213001098</els_id><sourcerecordid>3146460691</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-e265t-d18bd6d611cc6edca848d17c26b34742c569e7dc53d173d05cb216802a8ad6df3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNo9UEtPwzAMjhBIjMFvWCQucGix0ybNdpsmXtIQB7ZzlCYptCrrSLJJ_HsybeJiy9Znfw9CJgg5AoqHLnfaB9N6t88ZYJEDzwHxjIxQViwTkslzMgJAlknG2SW5CqGDNMO0GpHZ6stRHcLuexvbYRPo0ND0zG2Mm9E59W7b_9I40Dddt5G6SHWf07sDz_01uWh0H9zNqY_J-ulxtXjJlu_Pr4v5MnNM8JhZlLUVViAaI5w1WpbSYmWYqIuyKpnhYuoqa3iRtoUFbmqGQgLTUqe7phiT2-PfrR9-di5E1Q07v0mUCkvBk1dWYkJNjqhGD0p_-jao9UfSyQFSFSgSYn5EuCR23zqvTkZtys5EZYdWIahDqKpT_6Gqg1kFXCWi4g9hImlT</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1465011241</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>The assumptions of science: A reply to Mabit et al. (2013)</title><source>Elsevier</source><creator>Parsons, A.J. ; Foster, I.D.L.</creator><creatorcontrib>Parsons, A.J. ; Foster, I.D.L.</creatorcontrib><description>Mabit et al. (2013) misrepresent Parsons and Foster (2011) as a review of the literature on the use of 137Cs for the study of soil erosion, whereas it was a review on the validity of the assumptions upon which the technique rests. Their paper presents no evidence that challenges our conclusion “that no current rates of soil erosion that are based upon the use of this technique are reliable”. We, therefore, stand by that statement and express our concern that major agencies involved with soil erosion might accept without question both the validity of the 137Cs method and the rates of soil erosion that have been published using it.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0012-8252</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1872-6828</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.earscirev.2013.05.011</identifier><identifier>CODEN: ESREAV</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Amsterdam: Elsevier B.V</publisher><subject>137Cs ; cesium ; Earth science ; radionuclides ; Scientific assumptions ; soil analysis ; Soil erosion</subject><ispartof>Earth-science reviews, 2013-12, Vol.127, p.308-310</ispartof><rights>2013 Elsevier B.V.</rights><rights>Copyright Elsevier Sequoia S.A. Dec 2013</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Parsons, A.J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Foster, I.D.L.</creatorcontrib><title>The assumptions of science: A reply to Mabit et al. (2013)</title><title>Earth-science reviews</title><description>Mabit et al. (2013) misrepresent Parsons and Foster (2011) as a review of the literature on the use of 137Cs for the study of soil erosion, whereas it was a review on the validity of the assumptions upon which the technique rests. Their paper presents no evidence that challenges our conclusion “that no current rates of soil erosion that are based upon the use of this technique are reliable”. We, therefore, stand by that statement and express our concern that major agencies involved with soil erosion might accept without question both the validity of the 137Cs method and the rates of soil erosion that have been published using it.</description><subject>137Cs</subject><subject>cesium</subject><subject>Earth science</subject><subject>radionuclides</subject><subject>Scientific assumptions</subject><subject>soil analysis</subject><subject>Soil erosion</subject><issn>0012-8252</issn><issn>1872-6828</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2013</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNo9UEtPwzAMjhBIjMFvWCQucGix0ybNdpsmXtIQB7ZzlCYptCrrSLJJ_HsybeJiy9Znfw9CJgg5AoqHLnfaB9N6t88ZYJEDzwHxjIxQViwTkslzMgJAlknG2SW5CqGDNMO0GpHZ6stRHcLuexvbYRPo0ND0zG2Mm9E59W7b_9I40Dddt5G6SHWf07sDz_01uWh0H9zNqY_J-ulxtXjJlu_Pr4v5MnNM8JhZlLUVViAaI5w1WpbSYmWYqIuyKpnhYuoqa3iRtoUFbmqGQgLTUqe7phiT2-PfrR9-di5E1Q07v0mUCkvBk1dWYkJNjqhGD0p_-jao9UfSyQFSFSgSYn5EuCR23zqvTkZtys5EZYdWIahDqKpT_6Gqg1kFXCWi4g9hImlT</recordid><startdate>20131201</startdate><enddate>20131201</enddate><creator>Parsons, A.J.</creator><creator>Foster, I.D.L.</creator><general>Elsevier B.V</general><general>Elsevier Sequoia S.A</general><scope>FBQ</scope><scope>7TG</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>F1W</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>H8D</scope><scope>H96</scope><scope>KL.</scope><scope>KR7</scope><scope>L.G</scope><scope>L7M</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20131201</creationdate><title>The assumptions of science: A reply to Mabit et al. (2013)</title><author>Parsons, A.J. ; Foster, I.D.L.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-e265t-d18bd6d611cc6edca848d17c26b34742c569e7dc53d173d05cb216802a8ad6df3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2013</creationdate><topic>137Cs</topic><topic>cesium</topic><topic>Earth science</topic><topic>radionuclides</topic><topic>Scientific assumptions</topic><topic>soil analysis</topic><topic>Soil erosion</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Parsons, A.J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Foster, I.D.L.</creatorcontrib><collection>AGRIS</collection><collection>Meteorological &amp; Geoastrophysical Abstracts</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ASFA: Aquatic Sciences and Fisheries Abstracts</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Aerospace Database</collection><collection>Aquatic Science &amp; Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) 2: Ocean Technology, Policy &amp; Non-Living Resources</collection><collection>Meteorological &amp; Geoastrophysical Abstracts - Academic</collection><collection>Civil Engineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Aquatic Science &amp; Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) Professional</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies Database with Aerospace</collection><jtitle>Earth-science reviews</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Parsons, A.J.</au><au>Foster, I.D.L.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>The assumptions of science: A reply to Mabit et al. (2013)</atitle><jtitle>Earth-science reviews</jtitle><date>2013-12-01</date><risdate>2013</risdate><volume>127</volume><spage>308</spage><epage>310</epage><pages>308-310</pages><issn>0012-8252</issn><eissn>1872-6828</eissn><coden>ESREAV</coden><abstract>Mabit et al. (2013) misrepresent Parsons and Foster (2011) as a review of the literature on the use of 137Cs for the study of soil erosion, whereas it was a review on the validity of the assumptions upon which the technique rests. Their paper presents no evidence that challenges our conclusion “that no current rates of soil erosion that are based upon the use of this technique are reliable”. We, therefore, stand by that statement and express our concern that major agencies involved with soil erosion might accept without question both the validity of the 137Cs method and the rates of soil erosion that have been published using it.</abstract><cop>Amsterdam</cop><pub>Elsevier B.V</pub><doi>10.1016/j.earscirev.2013.05.011</doi><tpages>3</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0012-8252
ispartof Earth-science reviews, 2013-12, Vol.127, p.308-310
issn 0012-8252
1872-6828
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_1465011241
source Elsevier
subjects 137Cs
cesium
Earth science
radionuclides
Scientific assumptions
soil analysis
Soil erosion
title The assumptions of science: A reply to Mabit et al. (2013)
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-01T17%3A14%3A53IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_fao_a&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=The%20assumptions%20of%20science:%20A%20reply%20to%20Mabit%20et%20al.%20(2013)&rft.jtitle=Earth-science%20reviews&rft.au=Parsons,%20A.J.&rft.date=2013-12-01&rft.volume=127&rft.spage=308&rft.epage=310&rft.pages=308-310&rft.issn=0012-8252&rft.eissn=1872-6828&rft.coden=ESREAV&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.earscirev.2013.05.011&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_fao_a%3E3146460691%3C/proquest_fao_a%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-e265t-d18bd6d611cc6edca848d17c26b34742c569e7dc53d173d05cb216802a8ad6df3%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1465011241&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true