Re: Rejection of possible explanation for Cohen's results

[Bernard L Cohen <blc+@pitt.edu>]

On Thu, 9 Mar 2000 FIELDRW@aol.com wrote:

> In a message dated 00-03-09 10:09:14 EST, Cohen wrote:
> 
> <<  Field Response: As we suggested before (see references below), the risk 
> model 
>  > you derive from the BEIR IV model is not equivalent to the BEIR IV risk 
>  > model.  You attempted to equate the model to the BEIR IV model by applying 
>  > rigid assumptions that include: 1) The time spent in the home is the same 
> for 
>  > all individuals; 2) radon exposures occurring outside the home do not 
>  > contribute to lung cancer risk; 3) baseline lung cancer mortality is 
> solely a 
>  > function of age and smoking; 4) all smokers have the same increased risk 
> of 
>  > mortality; 5) smoking duration and intensity is the same for everyone; 6) 
> age 
>  > is the only modifying effect of radon exposure; and 7) radon concentration 
> is 
>  > directly proportional to the delivered dose from the radon progeny.
>  
>     --Anyone with experience in mathematical derivations will
>  recognize that it would be impossible to take every little possible
>  complicating detail into account in a mathematical derivation. All of
>  these issues have been addressed elsewhere in my publications. Items 1, 2,
>  and 7 were addressed in Table 1 and associated discussion in my paper in
>  Health Physics 75:23-28;1998. Item 4 is the assumption of BEIR-IV that I
>  was starting with. Item 5 is most fully analyzed in two forthcoming papers
>  accepted for publication in Health Physics and J. Radiol Prot. These also
>  cover Item 4. Items 3 and 6 are covered by my responses to the other
>  items. 
> 
> Dr. Cohen you stated:  I can not expect you to take every little possible 
> complicating detail into account in a mathematical derivation.
> 
> Some of these little complicating details could explain the results you get.  
> I do expect you to at least provide (peer reviewed papers) references to 
> support your assumptions.  This is part of the scientific method. You have 
> yet to provide references to support any of your primary or secondary 
> assumptions for your derivations.

	--Could you read my reply above again, and tell me what I have
failed to respond to? The complicating details you listed that were not
taken into account in my mathematical derivation, items 1 to 7 above, were
treated in the papers referenced above. What assumptions do you want
references to?

> 
Bernard L. Cohen
Physics Dept.
University of Pittsburgh
Pittsburgh, PA 15260
Tel: (412)624-9245
Fax: (412)624-9163
e-mail: blc+@pitt.edu


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