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

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

Dr. Cohen,



This is my last post on this issue.  You said in a previous post that 

you would look at any area of the U.S. to see if your inverse 

association holds.  You make statements and don't back them up.  I 

just want to again document that you have been asked to do this yet 

again. Why have you not responded to numerous posts and publications 

by Field and others to provide a definitive explanation why your 

inverse association does not hold in Iowa when they used all your 

data, and merely updated your lung cancer incidence data?  The 

inverse association disappeared when they used better SEER data.   If 

epidemiologists are too believe your findings for the whole country, 

they should hold for a state with the highest radon, finest gradation 

of ecologic units (1/16 of the total units you use)and Iowa only has 

1% of the U.S. population.  The only answer I saw that you gave was 

that there must be some minority population causing Smith et al 

findings.  I do not find it plausible given the lack of a large 

ethnic minority population in Iowa.  Don't say you can explain it for 

any geographic region when you failed to respond to Field's challenge.



John Williams





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.