Re: Risks of low level radiation - New Scientist Article

["Otto G. Raabe" <ograabe@UCDAVIS.EDU>]

At 05:22 PM 12/9/01 -0500, Muckerheide wrote:

>Very good synopsis!  But...

> 

>> Of course, it is always possible to say that some yet-to-be discovered

>> cross-level confounder could be causing the "apparent" disagreement with

>> LNT, but it does seem unlikely. [From O. Raabe, earlier.}

>

>Alvarez and Seiler correctly note that this isn't possible. What's a

>"confounder?" A factor that affects a subset such that the results do not

>represent the whole set. Bernie essentially measured the whole set. What

>confounder can fix a "discrepancy" between the whole and itself? :-)

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

December 11, 2001

Davis, CA



With highest regard for my friends Joe and Fritz, I must say that I tend to

agree with Lubin's mathematical analysis that shows that it is

theoretically possible that the non-LNT slope observed by Prof. Cohen may

be in error without limit as a result of some unknown cross-level

confounding relationship. No whole-set ecological study will uncover such a

factor if it exists. But I believe that it is unlikely, and no one has been

able to identify a plausible cross-level confounding relationship. I

believe that Prof. Cohen agrees with this assessment.



Otto



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

Prof. Otto G. Raabe, Ph.D., CHP

Center for Health & the Environment

(Street Address: Bldg. 3792, Old Davis Road) 

University of California, Davis, CA 95616

E-Mail: ograabe@ucdavis.edu

Phone: (530) 752-7754   FAX: (530) 758-6140

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

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

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.