RE: "Are you a statistician?"

["Dukelow, James S Jr" <jim.dukelow@PNL.GOV>]

Jim Nelson wrote:

-----Original Message-----

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

Sent: Friday, December 07, 2001 10:16 AM

Cc: radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu

Subject: RE: "Are you a statistician?"





Mr. Dukelow,



We will indeed need to agree to disagree.  I think papers by Field and Smith



are very persuasive.  It looks like other scientist who adhere to the 

"scientific method" feel the same way.  I see this posting at the Iowa 

website http://www.cheec.uiowa.edu/misc/radon.html confirms my beliefs.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

----



COMMENTS FROM OTHER SCIENTIST

"The Iowa Radon Lung Cancer Study, conducted by Drs. R. William Field, 

Charles F. Lynch and colleagues represents by far the most substantial study



of residential radon health effects accomplished to date. By rigorous 

analysis of radon exposures for women with lung cancer and matched controls,



this study has shown a clear association between lung cancer and radon 

exposures in homes.



A major advantage of this study was the high radon levels found in Iowa 

homes, which showed about a 50% increase in lung cancer risk at the EPA 

action level of 4 pCi/L. The Iowa lung Cancer Study is a major milestone for



confirming lung cancer incidence due to radon exposures as predicted by the 

National Academy of Sciences BEIR VI report. The researchers should be 

highly commended for this definitive study showing substantial lung cancer 

risks due to radon exposures in homes."



Raymond Johnson, Certified Health Physicist

(Past) President, Health Physics Society



I would be glad to discuss this directly with you after you unpack and check



the assertions I made. Please email me directly.



Jim Nelson



==================



Jim Dukelow responds:



Give me a break. 'Other scientist [sic] who adhere to the "scientific

method" feel the same way', indeed!  The implication, I suppose, is that

since I don't agree with Bill Field, I don't "adhere to the scientific

method".



If you believe in the Popperian falsification model of the scientific

method, as most scientists who think about the scientific method do, then

you should construct tests of a scientific hypothesis -- say, the linear

no-threshold hypothesis for radiation causation of cancer.  These tests

should be capable of delivering a negative answer, that is, capable of

saying that, no, the predictions of the hypothesis are not valid.  That is

exactly what Dr. Cohen has done with his county data.  Since he is testing

the LNTH, the ecologic nature of his data is absolutely irrelevant.  It is

the LNTH mafia that is flouting the scientific method by their refusal to

deal honestly with Cohen's refutation of the LNTH.



I didn't catch YOUR response to your question about whether YOU are a

statistician.



By the way, I am agreeing to disagree with Bill Field, not with you.



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.

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

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.