Schneeberg Study Criticisms

["Jim Nelson" <nelsonjima@HOTMAIL.COM>]

Karl,



You are correct, in all fairness, I shouldn't criticize the study without 

providing some details. I had several problems with the study, but I will 

list just three at this time.



In your study, the number of cases was extreley small.  In fact on your one 

grapgh, that Fritz is so exicted about, showing exposure and lung cancer out 

of 6 of your exposure categories, 4 categories had 6 or less cases.  I think 

you really need a larger sample size before making the announcement that you 

are finding a threshold.



My second problem is that it looks like you went back to the 1950s to 

collect your cases. Were your controls also chosen from that time period?   

If someone died from lung cancer in the 1950s, when did you take the radon 

measurements in the home?  Weren't you really interested in what the radon 

levels were before 1955, say 1930 - 1955?

It looks like you used death certificates to find your lung cancer cases.  I 

can imagine that 30 and 40 years ago as today, the death certificates list 

the cause of death.  If it says lung cancer, how do you know that it was the 

primary cancer and not just not a secondary cancer the person died from?  

How were the lung cancers proven?  With such a small sample size I would 

think all of these problems are important.



Your exposure categories look like they were chosen arbirarily.  They are 

uneven.  Why with such a small sample size would you select so many expoure 

categories?  Overall, it looks like you are finding a positive trend for 

people living in homes when considering their radon exposure and lung 

cancer.  What does your dose effect curve look like with just 3 even 

categories?  Wouldn't a smaller number of categories increase your 

confidence for each exposure category?



Has your study been submitted to a journal such as Health Physics?  I would 

think it would be important to get others to review your work before making 

strong claims as is in your report.



Just my 2 cents for what its worth.   Jim



--------------------------------------



>From: precura.martin@T-ONLINE.DE (Dr. Karl Martin)

>Reply-To: precura.martin@T-ONLINE.DE (Dr. Karl Martin)

>To: nelsonjima@HOTMAIL.COM

>CC: radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu

>Subject: Schneeberg study

>Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 10:54:05 +0200

>

>Dear Jim,

>

>from your mail to Fritz Seiler I learnt you are not so happy with the 

>Schneeberg

>Study due to the methods without further comment. The authors would be glad 

>to

>discuss your objections, please let us know what made you unhappy with the

>methods.

>

>Regards, Karl



_________________________________________________________________

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com



************************************************************************

You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,

send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu  Put the text "unsubscribe

radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.

You can view the Radsafe archives at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/