[ RadSafe ] Ecological fallacy fallacy

[Fritz A. Seiler]

Hi All,

	As a risk assessor, I am getting somewhat tired of having to ask
the same old question:  When we do it absolutely epidemiologically
right, and control for all the confounders such as smoking in lung
cancer/radon studies, what do we wind up with and what can we use this
imformation for?
	The second most tiresome thing I have to put up with here, is
the thunderous silence that I hear every time I ask this question!  So I
will be a bit more direct and personal, and ask the radon
epidemiologists (List of Names omitted!) directly:  When you do it your
way, what do you get that can be used in a risk assessment?  

ANYBODY!?!?!

Best regards

Fritz

PS: Maybe it will help if I crosspost this to Riskanal mailing list, and
leave the previous posts attached!


*****************************************************
Fritz A. Seiler, Ph.D.
Sigma Five Consulting:          Private:
P.O. Box 1709                   P.O. Box 437
Los Lunas, NM 87031             Tomé, NM 87060
Tel.:      505-866-5193         Tel. 505-866-6976
Fax:       505-866-5197         USA
*****************************************************

*****************************************************
"This is the hour when democracy must justify
itself by capacity  for effective decision, or risk
destruction or disintegration. Europe is dotted
with the ruins of right decisions taken too late."

"America's Responsibility in the Current Crisis"
Manifesto of the Christian Realists. May, 1940.
*******************************************************




-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On
Behalf Of Dale Boyce
Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2005 1:46 PM
To: radsafe at radlab.nl
Subject: [ RadSafe ] Ecological fallacy fallacy


Hi all,

I keep seeing the phrase ecological fallacy invoked.  The more correct
term 
is ecological interference, and statistical methods have been devised to

circumvent it. See for example:

http://gking.harvard.edu/eicamera/kinroot.html

I believe this was published around 1997.  The presence of confounding 
factors does not preclude finding statistically significant trends.
While 
this particular paper/book was developed to study voting trends and not 
epidemiological studies, its conclusions apply.

I can't say whether or not anyone has used this or similar data
treatments 
in background radiation studies. If not someone should.   Automatically 
invoking the ecological fallacy argument without examining the
underlying 
statistical treatment is insufficient to discount epidemiological
studies.

Just my $0.02

Dale



----- Original Message ----- 
From: <Rainer.Facius at dlr.de>
To: <crispy_bird at yahoo.com>; <jimm at WPI.EDU>; <maurysis at ev1.net>
Cc: <cdn-nucl-l at mailman1.cis.mcmaster.ca>; <mbrexchange at list.ans.org>; 
<radsafe at radlab.nl>
Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2005 1:43 AM
Subject: AW: AW: [ RadSafe ] Re: "Science" reports on background 
radiationandhealth


John:



Before we continue this futile exchange I suggest you start studying at 
least some of the more than 3 dozen references I offered upon your
request. 
Afterwards we might continue to discuss the evidence provided there on
the 
health status as a function of background radiation these populations
are 
exposed to. By then you might also understand why I referred to the 
ecological fallacy argument.



Regards, Rainer



________________________________

Von: John Jacobus [mailto:crispy_bird at yahoo.com]
Gesendet: Mi 10.08.2005 23:30
An: Facius, Rainer; jimm at WPI.EDU; maurysis at ev1.net
Cc: cdn-nucl-l at mailman1.cis.mcmaster.ca; mbrexchange at list.ans.org; 
radsafe at radlab.nl
Betreff: Re: AW: [ RadSafe ] Re: "Science" reports on background
radiation 
andhealth



Rainer,
I think you have fallen prey to the problem of wishful thinking.  As a
scientist, I expected more for you.

This has nothing to do with the LNT or ecological
studies.  It is what science is about.  Studies
performed and evidence presented.  Do you know of any
that support the idea that people who live in high
background areas are healthier and live longer?

--- Rainer.Facius at dlr.de wrote:

> "Can you cite any epidemiological studies..."
>
>
>
> John:
>
>
>
> Apparently you have fallen prey to the fairy tale
> perpetuated by linear philosophers that ecological epidemiological 
> studies yield no valid conclusion whatsoever. Particularly in case of 
> linear stimulus-risk relations, BL Cohen has conclusively
> refuted that myth. Otherwise it might indeed be
> impossible to extract risk coefficients from
> ecological studies. But who actually cares about
> risk coefficients if the complete (of course
> non-linear) risk function representing essentially
> the whole population is known. Obviously again only
> linear minds would care. Otherwise you might wish to
> study some of the results demonstrated in the papers
> of the incomplete list below (BTW, not all report
> ecological studies).
>
>
>
> Kind regards, Rainer
>
>  . . .


+++++++++++++++++++
"Every now and then a man's mind is stretched by a new idea and never 
shrinks back to its original proportion." -- Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.