RE: Risks of low level radiation - New Scientist Article

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

Mr. Dukelow,



I have read Dr. King's book and others on the subject. If you ask Dr. King, 

he will tell you, as he has told others, that if you can use data from 

discrete individuals that is preferable to ecologic data.  His book refers 

to the use of that data, when that is all you have.  Email Dr, King and ask 

him.









>From: "Dukelow, James S Jr" <jim.dukelow@pnl.gov>

>To: 'Jim Nelson' <nelsonjima@HOTMAIL.COM>, hflong@pacbell.net

>CC: radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu

>Subject: RE: Risks of low level radiation - New Scientist Article

>Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2001 12:20:04 -0800

>

>

>Jim Nelson wrote:

>-----Original Message-----

>From: Jim Nelson [mailto:nelsonjima@HOTMAIL.COM]

>Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2001 11:15 AM

>To: hflong@pacbell.net

>Cc: radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu

>Subject: Re: Risks of low level radiation - New Scientist Article

>

>

>Dr. Long,

>

>What is it about Cohen's work that you find so substantial?  Do you relaize

>all his work is ecologic in nature?  Even he says it can not be used to

>assess lung cancer risk.  These studies below have far more validity than

>the ecologic studies you support.

>

>http://www.cheec.uiowa.edu/misc/rd_review.pdf

>

>http://www.cheec.uiowa.edu/misc/radon.html

>

>I understand a national pooling is also underway by Lubin and others that

>may shed more light.  If you do in fact support Cohen's studies, your view

>is not shared by most epidemiologist I know.

>

>Jim

>

>===============

>

>Jim Dukelow comments:

>

>The phrase "ecological study" has been used as a talisman -- a golden cross

>held aloft to fend off the vampire, as it were -- by those who argue that

>the linear no-threshold hypothesis actually has scientific content, as

>opposed to simply being a regulatory convenience.

>

>In fact, a trivial mathematical calculation demonstrates that Cohen's

>ecological data is completely adequate for the task he sets it, testing the

>linear no-threshold hypothesis on actual data.  He finds, rather

>unequivocally, that the actual data is not consistent with the LNTH being

>valid.

>

>Epidemiology is a field in deep methodological doo-doo, to borrow George

>Bush pere's phrase.  We could trade citations, if you like, although I will

>have to get my office unpacked first.

>

>I encourage you to look at Gary King's book, A Solution to the Ecological

>Inference Problem: Reconstructing Individual Behavior from Aggregate

>Behavior, Princeton University Press, 1997.  You could also look at my

>review of King's book in the November 1998 issue of Health Physics.

>

>Best regards.

>

>Jim Dukelow

>Pacific Northwest National Laboratory

>Richland, WA

>jim.dukelow@pnl.gov

>

>These comments are mine and have not been reviewed and/or approved by my

>management or by the U.S. Department of Energy.





_________________________________________________________________

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.