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

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

On Wed, 15 Mar 2000, Vincent King wrote:

>       (If you can't properly 
>      adjust for smoking, it will overwhelm any other effects you're 
>      looking for).

	--You can study the question of how strong a negative correlation
between smoking and radon is required to explain the discrepancy between
the observations and the predictions of LNT, and the plausibility of such
a correlation. I have done this exhaustively, and found that the required
correlations are completely implausible. 

>      
>      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.

	--I have also studied exhaustively the negative correlation
between smoking and radon that is required to reduce the observations to a
"random scatter", and found that even that correlation is completely
implausible


Bernard L. Cohen
Physics Dept.
University of Pittsburgh
Pittsburgh, PA 15260
Tel: (412)624-9245
Fax: (412)624-9163
e-mail: blc+@pitt.edu


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