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

["John Williams" <JohnWi@law.com>]

Colleagues:

..

..

 

It remains unclear to me how Cohen’s ecological data can be used to 

test LNT

(or any other predictive theory). Cohen states that “…case-control 

studies

investigate the causal relationship between radon exposure and lung 

cancer,

whereas our work has the much more limited objective of testing the 

linear

no-threshold theory” (Health Physics, Volume 72(4), page 625, April 

1997).

It is absurd to suggest that testing the LNT theory is not a test of a

causal relationship. The LNT theory, in this context, only has 

meaning if

radiation causes cancer. If Cohen’s work does not test for a causal

relationship, how can his data be a test for LNT (or any other 

predictive

theory)?    



Cohen goes on to say “We have…never claimed that low level exposure 

to radon

is protective against lung cancer” (Health Physics, Volume 72(4), 

page 625,

April 1997). If the data refute LNT then what do the data support if 

not

hormesis (as suggested by the strong negative correlation for radon

concentrations <150 Bqm-3)? Cohen cannot have it both ways.



Cohen quotes Richard Feynman in support of his test of LNT. According 

to

Feynman “we look for a new law by the following process: first we 

guess at

it. Then we compute the consequences of the guess to see what would be

implied if this law we guessed is right. Then we compare the result 

of the

computation with …observation, to see if it works. If it disagrees 

with

experiment [the law] is wrong. In that simple statement is the key to

science. It does not make any difference how beautiful your guess is. 

It

does not make any difference how smart you are, who made the guess, 

or what

his name is-if it disagrees with experiment it is wrong. That is all 

there

is to it.” (Health Physics, Volume 72(4), page 624, April 1997). 

Implied in

Feynman’s statement is that the data provide a bona fide test of the 

theory.

If the data are erroneous (e.g., use of faulty data analysis, use of

inappropriate statistical tests, use of inappropriate experimental 

methods)

then the data do not provide a test of the theory even though the 

data, on

its face, might suggest the theory is wrong. 



Kenneth L. Mossman

Professor of Health Physics

Director, Office of Radiation Safety

Arizona State University

Kenneth L. Mossman

Professor of Health Physics

Director, Office of Radiation Safety

Arizona State University

Tempe, AZ 85287-3501

Phone: 480.965.0584/6190

Fax: 480.965.6609

Cellular: 602.769.2371

E-mail: ken.mossman@asu.edu





Sent by Law  Mail

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

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.