Re: I'm get tired of it too, but...

[Jim Muckerheide <jmuckerheide@delphi.com>]

Hi Vincent,

In simple terms, a few brief points:

Vincent King wrote:
> 
>      Dear group,
> 
>      Can someone make the radon/lung cancer issues here a little simpler
>      so the average HP can understand them?
> 
>      A linear, no threshold theory is a straight line going through
>      zero.  Only the slope is a variable.  And, at the exposure levels
>      we're discussing, it doesn't matter how you spread the exposure out
>      in a group (if risk is truly proportional to dose in a linear
>      manner). Anything else is not LNT.

1. You are exactly right.

>      Since it seems to be a given that the number one cause of lung
>      cancer is smoking, if you can do a reasonable job of adjusting for
>      smoking, you MIGHT be able to see other lung cancer cause/effect
>      relationships if they are 'big' enough. (If you can't properly
>      adjust for smoking, it will overwhelm any other effects you're
>      looking for).
> 
>      The SECOND leading cause of lung cancer is (according to assertions
>      by the EPA) radon. IF this is true (and if you can properly adjust
>      for smoking as stated above), then looking at average radon
>      exposures and lung cancer rates in similar populations should
>      either show (1) a positive correlation or (2) nothing but random
>      scatter if the effect is too small to see.  It should NOT
>      consistently show you a negative correlation, regardless of
>      'confounding' influences (which, by the definition at the top of
>      this paragraph, must be smaller than the number two cause of lung
>      cancer, and which would have no reason to 'join forces' and
>      confound in the same direction.)

1. You are exactly right.

>      Turning the last sentence around, if you DO see a negative
>      correlation between radon exposures and lung cancer rates, you can
>      say either (1) the negative correlation is due to the radon
>      exposure (which would be suggestive of hormesis) or (2) the

("due to" is more than "suggestive," and it has biological evidence :-)

>      negative correlation is due to something other than radon (which
>      implies that radon exposure should be much further down the list
>      than the 'Number two cause of lung cancer'. Notice that this ALSO
>      implies that the currently accepted LNT regarding radon is wrong,
>      if it can be overwhelmed so easily by 'something else').

1. You are exactly right.

>      If you misinterpret confounding factors, you shouldn't get a
>      negative correlation - you should get 'noise'.  For example, I
>      suppose you can take issue with whether average radon
>      concentrations in a county are truly representative of average lung
>      exposures, but how likely is it that average radon concentrations
>      in a county are REVERSED from average individual exposures?

1. You are exactly right.
 
>      What Dr. Cohen seems to be saying (and please correct me if I am
>      wrong, Dr. Cohen) is simply that the relationship between county
>      radon concentrations and lung cancer rates is the opposite of what
>      you would expect if the current LNT regarding radon is true. He
>      does not say that the cancer rates are 'caused' by anything. The

1. You are exactly right.

>      arguements against this conclusion, while they may also be valid,
>      have been far too obscure for me to follow.

2. These may NOT, CAN NOT be, valid. 

3. They ARE: to obfuscate ('obscure-ate' :-) data to maintain the LNT for the
rad protection agencies! And funding!

>      I do not fancy myself to be an epidemiologist, but I have been
>      exposed to some of the basic concepts, so, IN RELATIVELY SIMPLE
>      TERMS PLEASE, is my understanding right or wrong, and if wrong, why
>      is it wrong?  

1. You are exactly right.

>(And if it is wrong, we'd better look at HP education
>      in this country, because I base my thinking on what I thought the
>      HP education process was trying to impart.)

4. But: HP education IS imparting the LNT fiction, long known to be false, but
easy to obfuscate vs. Bernie's data!  

>      Thanks,
> 
>      Vincent King
>      vincent.king@doegjpo.com

Footnotes: Note the enormous experience/competence of the LNT-mongers over
decades to succeed in obfuscating even the results of studies with such large
variations in the large radon sources, with such an extreme and unambiguous
negative correlation as proven by Bernie, suppressing and ignoring substantial
confirmatory data, confirmatory epi, and biological evidence, and... 

But: Also consider the committed gov't agency funds for the 'researchers' and
'rad protectionists' who are committed to the LNT (or, at least, not
'accepting' that the LNT is invalid - sins of omission :-).  This is NOT to
"protect" the public from radiation sources, but to "protect" public funds
sources for the rad protection agencies. 

Finally, consider: Bernie Cohen's enormous effort to PERSONALLY conduct (and
publish under extreme duress and personal attack) this multi-million dollar
study for more than 10 years - that the gov't would not fund, and suppress (as
with many others). In fact, AEC/ERDA/DOE/NRC terminated in 1973 and beyond the
Argonne all-cancers vs. background radiation study that initially showed
equivalent results at the state level of rad data, and expected to be more
definitive by acquiring and applying county level radiation data. No one can
get more credit than Bernie as this house of cards comes down - like the
Berlin Wall.

Of course, AEC/DOE/NRC, and EPA, NCI, etc., terminated and suppressed many
others, from Manhattan Project animal studies, to 1950's Oak Ridge K-40
studies, the radium dial painter studies, the Canadian women TB fluoroscopy
studies, the Nuclear Shipyard Worker studies, all to enable massive cleanup
funding, public fear-mongering, continuing today supporting, e.g.,
Richardson's claim that we've been killing AEC/DOE workers for 50 years and we
are now ready to admit it. 

(I recommend: It's time to document the confirmatory data, and accept that the
LNT-advocates will/can never find some basis to support the LNT to refute the
results. It's also nearing time to address rad standards, petition
for/participate in rulemakings, legally challenge agency rules and policies as
'arbitrary and capricious' - plus allege 'scientific misconduct' for
individuals that go beyond simple 'obfuscation' to misrepresent data and
produce biased analyses - 'falsification' under the current standards of the
PHS Office of Scientific Integrity.)

Thanks.

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