Re: Cohen's ecological data: a test of LNT?

[Muckerheide <muckerheide@mediaone.net>]

Ken Mossman wrote:
> 
> It remains unclear to me how Cohen’s ecological data can be used to test LNT
> (or any other predictive theory). 

Should be pretty embarrassing!? :-)

>Cohen states that “…case-control studies
> investigate the causal relationship between radon exposure and lung cancer,
> whereas our work has the much more limited objective of testing the linear
> no-threshold theory” (Health Physics, Volume 72(4), page 625, April 1997).
> It is absurd to suggest that testing the LNT theory is not a test of a
> causal relationship. The LNT theory, in this context, only has meaning if
> radiation causes cancer. If Cohen’s work does not test for a causal
> relationship, how can his data be a test for LNT (or any other predictive
> theory)?

Right.

> Cohen goes on to say “We have…never claimed that low level exposure to radon
> is protective against lung cancer” (Health Physics, Volume 72(4), page 625,
> April 1997). If the data refute LNT then what do the data support if not
> hormesis (as suggested by the strong negative correlation for radon
> concentrations <150 Bqm-3)? 

Right.

>Cohen cannot have it both ways.

He doesn't, really. These are related. Cohen's data disprove the LNT
absolutely. His data further show a beneficial effect. He prefers to
address the first 'threshold' as a fact, without 'complicating' the
issue with the actual data showing beneficial effects. Initially there
were issues of possible confounding factors and 'the ecological
fallacy.' The analysis at this stage has shown these to be remote,
negligible, possibilities.

> Cohen quotes Richard Feynman in support of his test of LNT. According to
> Feynman “we look for a new law by the following process: first we guess at
> it. Then we compute the consequences of the guess to see what would be
> implied if this law we guessed is right. Then we compare the result of the
> computation with …observation, to see if it works. If it disagrees with
> experiment [the law] is wrong. In that simple statement is the key to
> science. It does not make any difference how beautiful your guess is. It
> does not make any difference how smart you are, who made the guess, or what
> his name is-if it disagrees with experiment it is wrong. That is all there
> is to it.” (Health Physics, Volume 72(4), page 624, April 1997). Implied in
> Feynman’s statement is that the data provide a bona fide test of the theory.

Right. They do.

> If the data are erroneous (e.g., use of faulty data analysis, use of
> inappropriate statistical tests, use of inappropriate experimental methods)
> then the data do not provide a test of the theory even though the data, on
> its face, might suggest the theory is wrong.

Right. And no such erroneous analysis exists. No case even indicates
such conditions, even after 10,000s of words describing the KIND of
problem that COULD exist - and 1000s of hours and formal analyses,
including BEIR VI that have desperately tried to find any such
problem. All 'objections' have been rationalizations and
misrepresentations, targeted to the uninformed as a political exercise
(including: specifically ignoring Cohen's subset analyses; the
confirmatory studies; Colditz' credible and knowledgeable
epidemiologists and application of appropriate statistics), and like
Lubin and BEIR VI, and some on this list, simply personalizing and
demonizing Cohen by those who are committed to rad
protectionist-funded disinformation - and to maintain their associated
funding and appointments. 

Like the BRPS Conference! which succeeded in demonstrating this before
the public policy interests! Thanks a lot. That will really help
overturn the suppression of data and overt dishonesty of the rad protectionists!

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

> Kenneth L. Mossman
> Professor of Health Physics
> Director, Office of Radiation Safety
> Arizona State University
> Kenneth L. Mossman
> Professor of Health Physics
> Director, Office of Radiation Safety
> Arizona State University
> Tempe, AZ 85287-3501
> Phone: 480.965.0584/6190
> Fax: 480.965.6609
> Cellular: 602.769.2371
> E-mail: ken.mossman@asu.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