Re: Radon and Lung Cancer

[Muckerheide <muckerheide@mediaone.net>]

Otto,

So...

"Otto G. Raabe" wrote:
> 
> March 12, 2000
> Davis, CA
> 
> As I understand Jay Lubin's point about Cohen's data, in an ecological
> process it is mathematically possible to consistently obtain an overall
> inverse correlation between radon in countries and lung cancer rates
> (Cohen's results) even if the dose response relationship for radon is LNT
> if there are regular complex interactions (cross correlations) among the
> various factors that contribute to or hinder lung cancer rates. This
> mathematical possibility exits even if we don't understand the nature of
> these interactions. Hence, I believe Lubin is saying that we cannot be sure
> that Cohen's results show anything but the results of these complex
> interactions between all of these factors. The factors themselves may look
> straightforward, such as age and associates radon exposure history, smoking
> history, environmental factors, available medical services, economic and
> employment factors, etc. Even though we might understand these various
> factors by themselves and separate them out (stratify the data), the
> complex cross interactions of these factor may me difficult to interpret or
> predict and may continue to affect the results. In a case-control study it
> is theoretically possible to control for know factors.

...what do you think the likelihood of such an "alignment of the
planets" is? 

First, just consider the statistics of the whole study. 

Then, consider that every one of hundreds of independent analyses of
this data produce the same results? Is the probability  <10^(-10^10)? 
Is astrology more or less likely to predict your marriage, career,
lifespan, and net worth!? 

Also ask: Where is example of a credible ecological study that
demonstrates any such effect? Even just a few percentage points
difference; just one standard deviation? Not even 2, or 10, much less
20 standards deviations? 

Compare that to the likelihood that the known low dose radiation
stimulation of immune competence, enzymatic repair proteins,
physiological/tissue repair, and apoptosis and other damage control
mechanisms actually function to reduce lung cancer (e.g., Harald
Rossi's demonstration of lung cancer reduction as a function of
external radiation), and the specific results of radon and alpha
radiation stimulation indicates at least a moderate probability that
the effect is fully explained (except to rad protection regulation and
LNT funding interests, who state disingenuously, 'you haven't proved
it to me'!?).

> Anyway, this is my understanding of Lubin's position. There are, of course,
> problems with case-control studies, also.

Surely you don't intend to imply that there is any credence to Lubin's
rationalization? Or more precisely, do you intend to infer that you
concur in this non-science?

Regards, Jim
muckerheide@mediaone.net
========================

  
> Otto
> 
>                 *****************************************************
>                 Prof. Otto G. Raabe, Ph.D., CHP
>               Institute of Toxicology & Environmental Health (ITEH)
>                    (Street address: Building 3792, Old Davis Road)
>                 University of California, Davis, CA 95616
>                 Phone: 530-752-7754  FAX: 530-758-6140
>                 E-mail ograabe@ucdavis.edu
>               *****************************************************
> ************************************************************************
> The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
> information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html