Re: Risks of low level radiation - New Scientist Article

[Gary Isenhower <garyi@BCM.TMC.EDU>]

Mr. Nelson,



You are wrong, that is not what he is saying.  Since I can't say it any

better I have placed the statements side by side so that the difference

will be obvious.



Jim Nelson wrote:

> 

> I diasagree totally with what you wrote below. What you are saying below is

> that smoking is not an important factor for lung cancer.  





Dr Cohen wrote:

> >       --I will give you an extreme example: Suppose there is very little

> >spread in smoking rates in various counties, so this would cause very

> >little difference in lung cancer rates. But there are always

> >fluctuations up and down due to ethnic variations, medical services,

> >reporting variations, chemicals in the environment and in the food,

> >  respiratory illness, etc, etc, and just plain statistical variations;

> >these would cause more differences in the lung cancer rates than the very

> >small differences caused by the very small differences in smoking. Then

> >R-squared would be close to zero. The true test would be the number of

> >standard deviations by which the regression of lung cancer on smoking

> >differs from zero. On that basis, my smoking data test out very well.

>



    _______________________________________________



	Gary Isenhower

	713-798-8353

	garyi@bcm.tmc.edu

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

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.