Ecologic LNT debate

[FIELDRW@aol.com]

Jeff,

I do not want to be drawn into this dialogue once again on the listserv.  If 
you check the Radsafe archives and read the Forum article, the rejoinder, and 
the follow-up letters-to-the-editor, it is obvious I have spent far too much 
time on this topic.  I do not wish to be drawn back into a debate on the 
listserv.  

However, I just could not let a statement Dr. Cohen recently made pass 
without a response. 

1)  In a message dated 3/1/00 9:03:45 AM Central Standard Time, blc+@pitt.edu 
writes:

"It seems clear to me that my analyses of the suggestions by Lubin,  Smith et 
al, and Goldsmith which were published showed that their suggestions were 
completely implausible. To the best of my knowledge, they have never 
quarreled with that conclusion."

It may be clear to Dr. Cohen, but as the senior author on the forum article 
with Smith, I state for the record that we do quarrel with Dr. Cohen's 
conclusion above. It would be obvious to most reasonable people in our last 
letter to the editor, published in the Health Physics Journal, that we did 
not agree with Dr. Cohen's conclusion above.  

Jay Lubin would also not agree with Dr. Cohen's conclusion above.

2)  I spoke directly to Dr. Cohen many years ago about my concerns regarding 
the poor quality of his smoking prevalence data.  When we arrived at an 
impasse, he suggested that if I had concerns about his data I should write a 
letter to the Health Physics Journal.  After, we received Dr. Cohen's data 
and started to examine it, the letter evolved into the Forum paper.  I would 
say the 80 hours you spoke about would reflect only the analyses time for the 
original Forum paper.  

3)  Jeff, you are correct, we feel there were numerous points we made that 
Dr. Cohen has inadequately responded to.  To name just a few:

a) Dr. Cohen has not provided references to justify that the LNT formula he 
uses is equivalent to the BEIR LNT formula.  In fact, we do not feel Dr. 
Cohen is testing the BEIR LNT formula.

b)  Dr. Cohen has yet to explain why there is such a large inverse 
relationship between his smoking rate data and his radon concentrations.  
Residual confounding from smoking could easily explain his findings.  He will 
say, he examined this previously and it was not a factor.  We state he could 
not examine this, because of the summary averaged data he uses.

c) Dr. Cohen has yet to respond to why his averaged summary smoking data do 
such a poor job predicting lung cancer rates in the counties.

d) Dr. Cohen has yet to respond in an analytical fashion as to why the large 
inverse relationships he noted for Iowa disappeared when we used better lung 
cancer incidence data and kept the rest of Dr. Cohen's data.  Dr. Cohen did 
offer the excuse of some ethnic group causing this effect.  This is somewhat 
far-fetched in Iowa.

Jeff, if you have your own concerns about Dr. Cohen's data, please consider 
submitting it to a peer-reviewed journal.  I am not sure the Health Physics 
Journal is open to additional letters or papers on this topic.  That would be 
a question for Ken Miller.  I suggest you call Ken prior to taking the time 
to respond to Dr. Cohen's latest reward offer. 

Jeff, while I thank you for your supportive comments.  I do not feel this 
kind of debate is best presented on the listserv.  Perhaps another, more 
scientific, forum can be found.  Perhaps you could continue the discussion 
privately with Dr. Cohen or myself.   

Best Regards, Bill 

Feel free to contact me at:

R. William Field, Ph.D.
College of Public Health
Department of Epidemiology
N222 Oakdale Hall
University of Iowa
Iowa City, Iowa 52242

319-335-4413
mailto:bill-field@uiowa.edu



************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html