Re: Radon and Lung Cancer

[Muckerheide <muckerheide@mediaone.net>]

Well said. Add that Cohen's data produces hundreds of independent
analyses with consistent results, and that substantial data from other
less-well-defined studies confirm the results, while miner and
case-control studies border on junk science. But...

Holloway3@aol.com wrote:
> 
> The large size of the data set used by Dr. Cohen gives me considerable
> confidence in his results.  That large size will eliminate many problems that
> might be present with a smaller data set. Consider that to predict the
> results of a national election, a sample size of  only a little over a
> thousand voters is required to give a result accurate to within about 3%.  If
> the polling service increased the sample size to 100 million voters, then the
> error would be reduced  considerably and assuming no one changed their mind
> and the sample was randomly selected, the result would be just about fool
> proof in terms of any significant statistical problem or confounding factor.
> Or course taking a sample that large would be prohibitively expensive but
> that is beside the point in this context.  Cohen's data resembles the sample
> size of 100 million voters more than it does the sample of 1,000 voters.  The
> only thing remarkable in this situation is how resistant some people are to
> the obvious conclusion.  The obvious conclusion is that contrary to
> expectation, lung cancer has a strong negative correlation with radon
> concentrations, suggesting the possibility that radon may helpful in
> preventing lung cancer deaths rather than promoting lung cancer.  But is this
> really such a shocking conclusion?  After all, radiation has been used for
> many years to treat cancer.  There is a slight possibility that his results
> are an illusion but the probability of that is small, given the amount of
> data that produces the negative correlation.  Sometimes it pays to be

...note that the operative concept is "it pays" for the rad
protectionists who obfuscate data to support the LNT, at massive cost
to society and radiation technologies (presumably accepting that
radiologists would be mass murderers if low to moderate radiation to
otherwise healthy people caused cancer).

> convinced by the obvious, rather than to get hung up with details that have
> little impact on the overall picture.

What's amazing is how many people choose to be explicitly complicit in
this fraud (and the many more implicitly complicit) while destroying
their own futures for a few pieces of silver now. Radiation
technologies would rapidly develop with great demand for
cost-effective rad protection if radiation were managed to protect
public health instead of adopting the "contollable dose" fraud. Good
rad protection managers would even have a careerpath to the executive
suite!? :-)

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