AW: [ RadSafe ] Re: LNT/threshold/hormesis - what do HPs really

[Rainer.Facius at dlr.de]

Bernhard:

 

Having followed closely the corresponding exchanges in Health Physics, I can attest to the fact that the rational arguments raised so far against your analysis have - for me convincingly - been rejected by you for your essential conclusions to stand, the repudiation of the fallacy of "the ecological fallacy" being the most convincing one. Even more convincing for me is the unheard of fact that you made (and still make?) your raw data available in the web to anyone prepared to invest the effort necessary to disprove your conclusions from the data. I wonder what the status of LNT would be, if the data base for all the occupational, medical studies and the RERF data were as easily available for open scientific discourse and dispute. 

 

Kind regards, Rainer


________________________________

Von: Bernard Cohen [mailto:blc+ at pitt.edu]
Gesendet: Do 21.07.2005 17:25
An: A Karam
Cc: Facius, Rainer; radsafe at radlab.nl
Betreff: Re: [ RadSafe ] Re: LNT/threshold/hormesis - what do HPs really



A Karam wrote:

>In his 2004 Sievert Lecture, Abel Gonzalez presented a very interesting
>figure showing the number of research subjects needed to prove, or
>disprove LNT as a function of the dose each person received.  Using
>current epidemiological and statistical tools, he made a fairly
>convincing case that to show the presence or absence of effects at low
>levels of exposure - less than a rem - takes so many subjects that such
>studies are virtually impossible to perform or to fund.
>
> 
>
    ---I strongly contend that my studies have disproven LNT in the low
dose region in indisputable terms if one restricts considerations to
logical analysis. No one has presented a counter argument that I have
not clearly shown to be invalid. The only problem is that "the powers
that be" are not willing to  go thru my analyses and understand them. If
anyone thinks they have  another possible specific explanation for  my
observations, I would be delighted to engage him/her  in a debate
utilizing logical analysis.