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

Thu Jun 16 19:32:36 CDT 2011

Very true. One should also point out that Oregon State University is a publicly funded university.

On Jun 16, 2011, at 7:23 PM, Brian Riely wrote:

> 
> 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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