RE: Risks of low level radiation - New Scientist Article

[BERNARD L COHEN <blc+@PITT.EDU>]

On Thu, 6 Dec 2001, Jim Nelson wrote:



> We show that Cohen's erroneous assumptions concerning occupancy

> rates and smoking effects result in the use of the wrong model to test the

> linear no-threshold theory. Because of these assumptions, the ecologic

> confounding and cross level bias associated with Cohen's model invalidate

> his findings.



	--My response to this was given in Health Phys. 75:23-28;1998



 Furthermore, when more recent Iowa county lung cancer

> incidence rates are regressed on Cohen's mean radon levels, the reported

> large negative associations between radon exposure and lung cancer are no

> longer obtained.



	--My response to this was given in Health Phys. 76:440;1999 near

the end of the paper. My negative association for Iowa was not large, less

than one standard deviation. It is also not clear to me why the recent

incidence rates are more reliable than the official mortality rates that I

used, reported by National Center for Health Statistics.



	--You don't seem to read my responses to the criticisms you cite.

If you don't agree with my responses, you should at least cite them and

say why you don't agree. Ignoring them is surely not in keeping with

recognized scientific procedures





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

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.