Re: Risks of low level radiation - New Scientist Article

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

Phillippe,



I know this is not the position endorsed by Radiation Science and Health (so 

dare I speak it without fear of attack), but Lubin's and Smith et al. 

refutation of Cohen's data were very convinvcing to me.



Jim





>From: "Philippe Duport" <pduport@uottawa.ca>

>Jim Nelson reminds us of BEIR VI and of the Iowa study; Otto of Bernie

>Cohen's work.  Radon epidemiology would be more instructive if real

>uncertainties in exposures (and, if low radiation dose to the lung is the

>cause of cancer, all non-radon lung doses - and associated errors - 

>received

>by uranium miners) were taken into account in determining comprehensive

>error bars.  Bernie Cohen's work has been criticized but I may have missed 

>a

>numerical refutation of his conclusions (how big should have been the

>confounders and what correlation should there be between them to account 

>for

>the discrepancy with LNT predictions?).

>

>





_________________________________________________________________

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



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

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.