Mon Jan 16 18:52:22 CST 2012

```Maybe this is yet another case showing superficial use of statistics
leading to possible misinformation. I am not trying to support any of
the ideologies be it LNT or hormesis, I simply try to look at the
article and look at the data provided and try to see whether some
meaning can be derived.

The average concentration of indoor radon and gamma dose rates in Table
1, if taken with 3 sigma (99.7%) rather than one (68.3%), shows that the
variability of measurements is for each set a big fluffy cloud. 1/3 to
1/4 of the population has died of cancer in a decade. The sources of
cancer are multiple and some of the other causes (e.g. smoking) have
been considered. However unemployment, education and economic status
cannot be directly correlated with cancer rate.

In addition there is no law of nature or mathematics telling us that
data distributions are Gaussian or "normal"; that's just the lazy way,
requiring from the data analyst the least effort, Essentially here there
is a simple correlation model: dose -- cancer rate; but cancer has so
many more causes, so this correlation is in fact meaningless in such a
context. With single parameter correlations in a complex world you can
prove just anything and its contrary as well. Then look at the pictures
and the variances on the two graphs and the corresponding table. If you
take the straight line regression with fitting parameters confidence
bounds of 3 sigma how the heck can you conclude from that, that there is
a linear dependency? This leads to the conclusion that on the basis of
the data it cannot be established whether a linear dependency is
present: a visual inspection would suggest that there is no linear
increase with increase of dose at low values.: All you can say: the data
are surrounded by a large fog of uncertainty or noise which does not
help reaching meaningful conclusions. Let's avoid proving once more that
there are lies, big lies and statistics. In conclusion, according to my
analysis, the data variability is such that a "decrease of all cancer
death and lung cancer only" cannot be established. Let's be fair and
stay away from ideology.

Dr. Enrico Sartori

> Hi All,
>
> A new Dose-Response Journal paper (pre-press version) by Krzysztof Fornalski and Ludwik Dobrzynski provides additonal evidence for cancer suppression via prolonged exposure to natural background radiation.  The paper is titled "Cancer mortality in high natural background areas of Poland" and can be freely accessed from the journal website: http://dose-response.com/ .
>
> Best wishes,
> Bobby R. Scott
> Lovelace Respiratory Research Institute
> Albuquerque, NM, USA

```