AW: [ RadSafe ] AW: How much of RSH still exists?

[John Jacobus]

Rainer,
Thank you for comments.  However, without a title or
reference, I did not know there were two reports.

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

> John:
> 
>  
> 
> "My understanding is that this is a mega-analysis of
> previously published studies."
> 
>  
> 
> Yes, the Cardis BMJ 2005 study comprises populations
> for which previously individual analyses have been
> published. 
> 
>  
> 
> No, this one is not a meta-analysis of these
> previous studies. It is a new compilation of updated
> data from the respective populations established
> according to joint protocols and methods of
> analysis.
> 
>  
> 
> What has been published in BMJ cannot be criticised
> properly because it does not give sufficient primary
> data.
> 
>  
> 
> Kind regards, Rainer
> 
>  
> 
> ________________________________
> 
> Von: John Jacobus [mailto:crispy_bird at yahoo.com]
> Gesendet: Sa 24.09.2005 22:12
> An: Facius, Rainer; feinendegen at gmx.net;
> higsond at bigpond.net.au; rad-sci-l at WPI.EDU;
> radsafe at radlab.nl
> Betreff: RE: [ RadSafe ] AW: How much of RSH still
> exists?
> 
> 
> 
> Rainier,
> Thank you for the reply and your comments. I do not
> follow many of the epidemiological publications. My
> understanding is that this is a mega-analysis of
> previously published studies. I have only a
> rudimentary understanding of epidemiological
> studies.
> I would think that those who know more than I would
> be
> better qualified to analyze this report. Do you
> expect
> this will happen based of the journal source, e.g.,
> a
> not epidemiological journal? If it is not critized,
> does that mean its anaylsis is valid?
> 
> 
> 


+++++++++++++++++++
"Anyone who has never made a mistake has never tired anything new."
-- Albert Einstein

-- John
John Jacobus, MS
Certified Health Physicist
e-mail:  crispy_bird at yahoo.com


		
__________________________________ 
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 
http://mail.yahoo.com