Re: Risks of low level radiation - New Scientist Article

["Jerry Cohen" <jjcohen@PRODIGY.NET>]

Howard,

    Thank you for your comments. I too was impressed with Bernie Cohen's

assessments of the Radon/lung cancer relationship. Despite criticism of his

work on Radsafe and elsewhere, I found his studies to be as thorough and

comprehensive as could reasonably be expected. IMHO, his work completely

discredits the LNT nonsense.

    Previously, in a feeble attempt at humor, I suggested that his results

could simply be explained by the theory that high radon levels had the

effect of dissuading people from smoking. However, this theory did not pass

the "plausibility test", so I could not claim the reward he offered to

anyone who could provide an reasonable explanation of how his results might

not disprove the LNT. As far as I know, nobody else has succeeded in

doing so.    Jerry



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

From: <hflong@postoffice.pacbell.net>

To: Jerry Cohen <jjcohen@prodigy.net>; <radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu>

Sent: Saturday, December 08, 2001 9:22 AM

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





> Good points, Jerry,

> When Hammond and Horn published the first smoking-lung cancer study in

1959, the

> difference was so striking (about 20 times liklihood that a smoker would

die of

> lung cancer, as I recall) that there was little statistical wriggle room.

"Dose,

> (the difference, in this case) is

> everything".

>

> B Cohen's study uses immense numbers (70% + of US population) to  much the

same

> effect.

> Have you studied his graph with standard deviation limits for all levels

of

> exposure and noted the lack of variability in the trends?

>

> Howard

>

> Jerry Cohen wrote:

>

> >     Aren't all epidemiological studies suspect to some extent? I recall

a

> >  British study a few decades ago involving multiple regression analysis

of

> > several environmental factors that might effect the incidence of heart

> > disease. One result of this study indicated a strongly negative

> > correlation between heart disease and consumption of fried foods. This

> > result was very much contrary to  common wisdom and was dismissed

> > as likely due to confounding factors and/or other anomalies. It somehow

> > appears that Bernie Cohen's Radon studies may be meeting a similar fate.

> >     In this regard, couldn't one also discredit those studies indicating

> > smoking

> > as a causative factor for lung cancer on the basis of possible

confounding

> > factors. One could hypothesize for example that there often occurs a

certain

> > DNA configuration in  people that manifests itself in two unrelated

effects.

> > One of these effects is an increased propensity toward smoking. The

other

> > effect would be an increased susceptibility toward lung cancer. Since

both

> > effects stem from a common DNA configuration, it would account for the

> > strong correlation between incidence of lung cancer  and smoking.

> > However, under this hypothesis, one could not conclude that smoking

> > causes lung cancer, but rather that  both effects stem form a common

cause.

> > Assuming one possessing this DNA configuration could overcome their

> > inclination toward smoking, they would still retain their susceptibility

> > for lung cancer. Indeed many non-smokers get lung cancer and many

smokers

> > do not.

> >     On the surface, this hypothesis may appear to be absurd, but  try to

> > prove it

> > wrong. That would be just as hard  as proving Cohen's Radon studies are

> > right, given the possible existence of unknown mysterious confounding

> > factors.

>







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

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.