Re: Risks of low level radiation - New Scientist Article

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

Dr. Long,



I found the tables in their publication.  So, you stated that Cohen's 

epidemiology is the best you ever saw, but yet you did not read any of the 

other case-control studies?



Am J Epidemiol 2000 Jun 1;151(11):1091-102



Comment in:

Am J Epidemiol. 2000 Nov 1;152(9):895-6.



Residential radon gas exposure and lung cancer: the Iowa Radon Lung Cancer 

Study.



Field RW, Steck DJ, Smith BJ, Brus CP, Fisher EL, Neuberger JS, Platz CE, 

Robinson RA, Woolson RF, Lynch CF.



College of Public Health, Department of Epidemiology, University of Iowa, 

Iowa City 52242, USA.



Exposure to high concentrations of radon progeny (radon) produces lung 

cancer in both underground miners and experimentally exposed laboratory 

animals. To determine the risk posed by residential radon exposure, the 

authors performed a population-based, case-control epidemiologic study in 

Iowa from 1993 to 1997. Subjects were female Iowa residents who had occupied 

their current home for at least 20 years. A total of 413 lung cancer cases 

and 614 age-frequency-matched controls were included in the final analysis. 

Excess odds were calculated per 11 working-level months for exposures that 

occurred 5-19 years (WLM(5-19)) prior to diagnosis for cases or prior to 

time of interview for controls. Eleven WLM(5-19) is approximately equal to 

an average residential radon exposure of 4 pCl/liter (148 Bq/m3) during this 

period. After adjustment for age, smoking, and education, the authors found 

excess odds of 0.50 (95% confidence interval: 0.004, 1.81) and 0.83 (95% 

percent confidence interval: 0.11, 3.34) using categorical radon exposure 

estimates for all cases and for live cases, respectively. Slightly lower 

excess odds of 0.24 (95 percent confidence interval: -0.05, 0.92) and 0.49 

(95 percent confidence interval: 0.03, 1.84) per 11 WLM(5-19) were noted for 

continuous radon exposure estimates for all subjects and live subjects only. 

The observed risk estimates suggest that cumulative ambient radon exposure 

presents an important environmental health hazard.



Jim



>From: hflong@postoffice.pacbell.net

>Reply-To: hflong@pacbell.net

>To: Jim Nelson <nelsonjima@hotmail.com>

>CC: jim.dukelow@pnl.gov, hflong@pacbell.net, radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu, 

>blc+@pitt.edu, info@oism.org, rcihaka@techline.com

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

>Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2001 17:01:46 -0800

>

>Dear Jim and Radon Benefit or Harm Interests:

>

>Thank you. I am studying a printout of the Iowa, "Residential Radon and 

>Lung

>Cancer Case-Control Study", 13 pp of "Abbreviated Findings", 

>concluding,"-50%

>excess lung cancer risk was found among the women in the study after 

>correcting

>for the impact of smoking."

>

>I am troubled by the lack of any table or numbers other than generalities 

>for

>independent examination. As I recall, this was one criticism of the Iowa 

>Case

>study made by Bernie Cohen in his presentations to Doctors for Disaster

>Preparedness, which I will also review. Bernie did cite Iowa, but Iowa did 

>not

>cite Bernie. Why?

>

>Selection error is as serious in case-control studies as in ecological 

>studies.

>That is why we need dounle-blind, prospective human experiments, like the

>package under bed test suggested by Cameron. The CT-mammography test of 10 

>Rad

>exposure or sham, would mask benefit with the yearly one rad from CT..

>

>Please see if the Iowa raw data is available.

>It seems to be a well-conducted study.

>

>Howard Long

>

>Jim Nelson wrote:

>

> > 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

>





_________________________________________________________________

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.