[ RadSafe ] Radon: POWERFULLY associated with LESS lung cancer by B.Cohen

Thu Jun 16 19:23:06 CDT 2011

Maybe not all science, but basic research in this country is done via
Universities and government labs.  There are some small companies that do
basic research but they usually are funded via some government program,
grant, etc.  and have CRADAs.  Places like the old Bell Labs can not survive
anymore.

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Howard
Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2011 7:50 PM
To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) MailingList
Cc: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Radon: POWERFULLY associated with LESS lung cancer
by B.Cohen

Brian,
Not all science takes political funds, and is more trustworthy.

Go to www.oregonstateoutrage.com and see how 3 Robinsons' NE degrees at OSU
are blocked by a politician donating $27M of our money to OSU. Their
scientist dad never accepted gov. money and nearly unseated Congressman
DeFazio, while leading www.petitionproject.org -  first signed by Teller.

On Jun 16, 2011, at 10:30 AM, "Brian Riely" <brian.riely at gmail.com> wrote:

> Howard, you wrote, " Politics should follow science, not vice versa."
> 
> The problem is that politics funds science, not vice versa.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
> [mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Howard
> Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2011 11:30 AM
> To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) MailingList
> Cc: <blc at pitt.edu>; The International Radiation Protection (Health
Physics)
> MailingList
> Subject: [ RadSafe ] Radon: POWERFULLY associated with LESS lung cancer by
> B.Cohen
> 
> Chris, your "APPARENT inverse relationship between lung cancer mortality
and
> average radon concentrations" (emphasis added), disqualifies you as a
> serious critic of this most powerful epidemiologic study.
> 
> I and many others have tried to torture out of Prof. Cohen (at meetings of
> Doctors for Disaster Preparedness and here, on line) a spurious "garbage
in"
> explanation. Analyses assuming a hundred potential social skews results in
> the same: POWERFUL association in all stable USA
> county populations, with and without smoking and 100 other potential
> skewers.
> 
> I just took out of my wallet a cc of Cohen's graphs with bars of 95%
> significance used as points!
> The "corrected for smoking" graph seems identical to the total graph, bpth
> showing 
> mortality just 2/3 at the 4 Bq/meter-cubed level touted as dangerous, as
at
> 1/4 that exposure.
> This is evidence for hormesis, not "apparent", but as definite as
> epidemiology can give.
> LNT seems disproven by this (all Cohen will claim).
> 
> Politics should follow science, not vice versa (I like this use of the
word
> "vice").
> 
> Howard Long MD MPH Family Doctor and Epidemiologist
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Jun 16, 2011, at 6:22 AM, "Chris Hofmeyr" <chris.hofmeyr at webmail.co.za>
> wrote:
> 
>> Dear Proff Raabe and Cohen, Radsafers,
>> 
>> Prof Cohen's US-wide county-based radon studies caused quite a stir since
> 1995,
>> mainly because of the apparent inverse relationship between lung cancer
>> mortality and average radon concentrations. However, Cohen's main
> conclusion
>> was that the result was at variance with the linear-no threshold (LNT)
> model.
>> My own analysis of the data sets for two periods kindly provided by Prof
> Cohen
>> showed adamantly that there was in fact NO indication of a dependence on
>> average radon concentration up to the maximum recorded. Such a finding
> would
>> concur with Raabe's model of protracted low-intensity exposure (HPJ, July
>> 2011).  Human lifespan is too short to show discernible lung cancer
> induction
>> from domestic radon concentrations in the USA. 
>> 
>> However, uncertainty remains with respect to the question of the apparent
>> inverse relationship in Cohen's data between lung cancer mortality rates
> and
>> average county radon concentration, which some people wanted to interpret
> as
>> proof of hormesis. Significantly, in a 2006 paper on cancer risk from low
> level
>> radiation, Cohen did not cite his own radon data in support of hormesis
or
> even
>> rejection of LNT.  In Cohen's data average county radon concentration was
> to
>> some degree anti-correlated with smoking prevalence, thus explaining the
>> inverse relationship in the uncorrected (for smoking) data. The smoking
>> correction to the data was consequently important for the 'real'
> dependence
>> curve. Unfortunately it was not possible to analyse the correctness of
the
>> smoking correction, nor associated uncertainties, but I became convinced
> that
>> Cohen was not able to correct the data adequately for smoking, possibly
>> resulting in the persistent apparent inverse dependence of the
'corrected'
>> data.
>> 
>> A stark illustration of the overwhelming importance of extraneous factors
> -
>> most probably smoking - is to compare the female lung cancer data sets
> 1970-79
>> with 1979-94. There was a mortality increase of almost a factor of 2,
> whereas
>> male lung cancer declined very slightly between the two data sets (during
>> 1970-79 it was about a factor of 5 higher than the female figure).
>> Regards.
>> Chris Hofmeyr
>> chris.hofmeyr at webmail.co.za
>> 
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> South Africas premier free email service - www.webmail.co.za 
>> 
>> For super low premiums, click here http://www.dialdirect.co.za/?vdn=15828
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
>> 
>> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood
> the RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
> http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
>> 
>> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
> visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu
> _______________________________________________
> You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
> 
> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood
the
> RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
> http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
> 
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
visit:
> http://health.phys.iit.edu
> 
> _______________________________________________
> You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
> 
> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood
the RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
> 
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu
_______________________________________________
You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list

Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the
RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html

For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit:
http://health.phys.iit.edu