Re: Deaths from fossil fuel burning air pollution

["Otto G. Raabe" <ograabe@ucdavis.edu>]

At 11:58 AM 11/22/00 -0600, Prof. Cohen wrote:
>	--In the case of radiation, it is easy to imagine gross errors;
>for example, there could be a threshold at 20 rem, or even a negative
>slope below 20 rem. This would still be consistent with the RERF data.
>	 But for air pollution, it is not credible that the
>dose-response curve wandering through 151 data points can be so strange
>that a linear interpolation within the region would give a gross error.
***********************************************
November 22, 2000
Davis, CA

Dear Bernie:

I don't disagree with your statements as given, but there is large
uncertainty and variability in the air pollution data and the actual levels
of exposure for the affected people. Do you really think that these data
can be used to estimate an increase in mortality risk if the concentration
of airborne particulate matter goes from 30 micrograms per cubic meter to
32 micrograms per cubic meter? Is it possible that there is actually no
increase over this range?
Do you really think these regression fits are that good?

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