Re: (no subject)

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

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

> Dr Cohen, 
> 
> Your "treatments" (which are not references) were performed after you derived 
> your LNT-theory formula?  It looks like you are putting the cart before the 
> horse.  The assumptions need referenced and should be scientifically sound 
> prior to your derivations. If your treatments are based on your unsupported 
> LNT formula, your findings are invalid.  Please go back to your original 
> derivations and look at your assumptions.  I failed to find references 
> documenting these assumptions.  

	--In my previous 25 year life working in basic physics, mostly as
an experimentalist but to a considerable extent as a theorist, I had a
great deal of experience with mathematical derivations. I can assure you
that essentially all mathematical derivations include some
assumptions and approximations; if they did not, the mathematical
complexity would become completely unmanageable. If some of the
assumptions or approximations are questionable, one examines their effects
individually without abandoning the original mathematical derivation. That
is what I did in the papers that I referenced. If you can find a
theoretical physicist to serve as a referee between us on this issue, I
would be delighted to have him make a judgement. 

> Dr. Cohen, a week ago or so you stated, "We did not publish a joint paper, 
> and they (Lubin, Smith and Field) never suggested that we do so. They (Lubin, 
> Smith and Field) did not claim that my analyses failed to demonstrate that 
> their proposed explanations for our discrepancy were very highly 
> implausible."  

	--My statements above were made to defend myself against the
acccusation that I had reneged on my previous reward offer. That reward
offer included a condition that we publish a joint paper.

> 
> The purpose of my initial posting to the list was to inform you that we do 
> think your analysis (or lack of analysis) failed to demonstrate that our 
> proposed explanations were implausible. I assume you understand that now.  We 
> published a Forum paper concerning your work, a rejoinder, and a follow-up 
> letter in the journal.

	--No, I do not understand that. What I considered to be your
proposed explanations were addressed by me in Table 1 of Health Physics
75:18-22;1998 and in Table 1 of Health Physics 75:23-28;1998. These were
concrete proposals of explanations that could have qualified for the
reward, and none of your or Lubin's rejoinders questioned the fact that
my analyses showed that these proposals were very highly implausible.
The other issues discussed in the series of exchanges were not
specific proposed explanations for our discrepancy for which the reward
had been offered. They were generalized arguments which prove nothing
because they do not consider the requirement of plausibility. 

> I will resist responding any further publicly to the validity of your 
> findings for now.  Please do not misinterpret my silence as agreement with 
> your public postings.  Feel free to contact me directly if you are interested 
> in writing a joint paper describing the strengths and limitations of ecologic 
> and case-control studies for examining radon risk.  I am also open to any 
> other questions (via mailto:bill-field@uiowa.edu) regarding any statement I 
> have made on the listserv this past week.  Dr. Cohen, good luck on your quest!

	--I too am ready to discuss and defend my study. I am not
interested in discussing general proofs or ideas, but rather in finding a
specific explanation for my finding that LNT fails badly, grossly
over-estimating the cancer risk from low level radiation. As any
theoretical physicist will tell you, if you have a general proof that
something is wrong, it is always easy to concoct a specific example of how
it can go wrong. Such a specific example is what I am offering a reward
for.
	 The reason I cannot accept a general proof is that these proofs, such
as those offered by Lubin and by Field, ignore a corrolary condition to
the proof -- namely that the explanation must not be demonstrably
implausible. The question of plausibility can only be evaluated when faced
with a specific explanation. That is why I am offering a reward for a
proposed potential specific explanation. 
	I want to apologize to Radsafers for using so much listserv space
on these discussions. I simply sent a message offering a reward, and
everything I have posted since that time was simply in response to
challenges directed to me. I have tried to keep these responses brief and
to the point.

 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