Re: May I propose a physicist?

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

On Mon, 13 Mar 2000 Radiationhealth@aol.com wrote:

> Dr. Field and Cohen, 
>  It may not be clear to most people why you had 
> to derive a formula other than the initial BEIR IV formula in order to test 
> the BEIR IV formula. You may want to state why you had to perform any 
> derivation in order to test the BEIR IV linear formula?

	--Let me start with an example. To test Newton's famous formula,
	
			 F = m a

in a situation where there is a constant force, F ( e.g. a falling
body), you do not ordinarily measure the acceleration, a. Rather, you
start with F = m a and derive an expression for distance travelled vs
time, and measure that, which is easier than measuring acceleration
directly. In testing a theory, it is very common to derive its
consequences and test them.
	In my case, I had data on county lung cancer rates vs average
radon exposures and wanted to use those data to test the BEIR-IV formula.
I therefore started with the BEIR-IV formula and derived mathematically a
relationship that my data can be used to test. 

I> have a colleague who works in theoretical physics, Anthony Nero, here
at the 
> University of California. He has also worked in the area of both physics and 
> radon for many years.  Would both of you (Dr. Cohen and Dr. Field) agree to 
> have Dr. Nero serve as a referee on this issue?

    -- Very probably Nero would be acceptable, but his work that I know
about has not been in theoretical physics. Could you give me 2 or 3
references to papers in theoretical physics that he has published?

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