[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Ecological Study- I Need a Primer!
Radsafers,
Help me out here in regards to this issue of "ecological" studies. Let me
say right up front, that in this arena I am generally ignorant. As for me,
the answer to the now-famous question: "Are you a statistician?" is
emphatically: "No!"
As I understand it, an "ecological" study simply looks at a broad cohort of
people and looks to see whether certain conditions (health indicators) exist
in relationship to some varying influence, without defining a mechanism for
how the influence produces an effect on health. Is this correct?
By contrast, an "epidemiological" study seeks to prove something by
identifying the mechanism. Is this correct?
If my assumptions are correct, I am puzzled as to why the use of an
"ecological" study for disproving LNT is so roundly impugned, when this
seems to be a credible approach in other technical fields. For instance,
yesterday NPR had a story about a new study showing that women with breast
cancer do not live longer if they participate in a support group. A
previous study had asserted the opposite. Both of these studies (as I
understand) simply looked at a large group of women and compared group
involvement vs. mortality, with no significant attempt to identify a
cause-effect mechanism. Yet, within the medical community these studies
carry notable weight.
So, educate me. Please feel free to respond directly to my email, or post
if you think the group would be interested.
Thanks.
Bates Estabrooks
Facility Safety-EUO Restart
BWXT Y-12
9983-FS
P.O. Box 2009
Oak Ridge, TN 37831
865-574-7376
865-241-5780 (Facsimile)
ihk@y12.doe.gov <mailto:ihk@y12.doe.gov>
************************************************************************
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.