RE: Source of cancer data

["Jim Muckerheide" <jmuckerheide@cnts.wpi.edu>]

 From:	hflong@postoffice.pacbell.net



Dear John,

You are correct, in that "inexperienced" is less accurate than

"selective" to describe epidemiologists who prefer 431 diagnoses in the

1% outlier location of 100,000 deaths for inferences about LNT. Further,

I concede that any selection may be inadvertent or unconscious. I have

great respect for the investigators involved. We all do rationalize.



<Howard, as long as the operative words are "may be" since it is clear

that the efforts to suppress data are not possibly unintentional.

Without clear assessment of the actions and effects producing the error,

its not possible to effectively overturn the error, i.e., it's not a

product of erroneous science that can be corrected without waiting only

for the persons promulgating the errors to die, which doesn't work when

replacements are internally assigned from those whose fealty is to the

funders, not to the science. This of course applies to the "leaders" and

their "researcher" agents, not to those who are simply trained into the

fabrications in their educations. We can go back to the 50s/60s (and the

30s in medicine) to find the cases of data and suppression that have

kept the objective science results from being considered and

research/applications pursued.> 

 

However, I expect you to observe and concede that Cohen explicitly

states

that his findings cannot prove cause and effect, but that in 70% + of US

homes, radon 1-5 pCi/l in >70%  is associated with less lung cancer

mortality than in those with < 0.5 pCi/l, and that does not fit the

linear, no threshold hypothesis (LNT) - as applied to radon and lung

cancer mortality in those US homes. Otto Raabe expands on the statistics

of this in a recent radsafe posting.



<Also, lung cancer was rare before smoking, and NOT distributed by the

wide variation in radon areas. Animal studies (with actual measured

doses to individuals! :-) also do NOT show such an effect.>

 

Also, I expect you to concede that Cameron underlines his statement that

cause and effect cannot be proven by the NShipyardWS (10x the size of

Field's Iowa study, also case control) because the total mortality with

an extra  0.5+ rem, like mountain state background radiation, but from

Co60 gamma in 27,000 workers (356,000 person years with 2,200 deaths)

was

0.76 that of 32,000 matched workers (425,000 person years) receiving

only

usual coast background. This also does not fit LNT.



<You also want to note that the "All-cancer" results were also highly

statistically significantly lower in the nuclear workers, but were NOT

included in the 1991 DOE/PI summary of the report. Here we have dozens

of instances, including the GAO Report and NCRP 136, and DOE reports,

where the data is simply misrepresented. This is NOT simple

"unconsciouos bias." This includes the ludicrous claim that the

comparison group is biased, and that the result is due to "the healthy

worker effect." The data and the research has been shown to be

suppressed, with the results kept from being pub'd even with years of

being pushed to be pub'd. There's wide recognition in the research

community that there's no possibility that this study would not have

been pub'd if the results had been different. When DOE said there were

no funds, funds were offered to be provided if necessary. All this was

while the IARC compiled the near-junk data with enormous confounding

effects of the "ALL nuclear workers" in the US, UK and Canada, with DOE

funding, does NOT include the NSWS (and BEIR V, 1990, with the same

Chairman, does NOT include the NSWS that expended $10M from 1978-1987).

Then the IARC misrepresents its own data to claim that the nuclear

worker data "confirms" the LNT.>



Cameron and Cohen want a clinical trial that could prove benefit (or

harm).

Think of what it may mean - longevity, surgical mortality, AIDS in

Africa, etc.

Do you, too, want definitive proof - a large, clinical trial? Cameron

has

suggested one, better than mine (which would have obscured differences

with the effect of 1 rem yearly from CT for controls as well as

subjects).



<Don't give the controls CT. If imaging for diagnostics is important -

it wouldn't seem to be necessary, use MRI as applicable, even with

limited CT for lung heart for much lower dose. :-) >



Regards, Jim

=============



John Williams wrote:



> What a joke.  Thay must be inexperienced if they do not believe

> Cohen's findings over Fields?

>

> Do a pubmed search on Lubin.  Do you find him inexperienced also.

> How about Sir Richard Doll?

>

> Jay H. Lubin*

>

> Abstract—There is still substantial confusion in the radiation

> effects community about the inherent limitations of ecologic

> analysis. As a result, inordinate attention has been given to the

> discrepant results of Cohen, in which a negative estimate is observed

> for the regression of county mortality rates for lung cancer on

> estimated county radon levels. This paper demonstrates that Cohen's

> ecologic analysis cannot produce valid inference on the exposure-

> response relationship for individuals unless lung cancer risk factors

> (smoking, age, occupation, etc.) for individuals are statistically

> uncorrelated with indoor radon level within counties or unless risk

> effects for radon and other factors are additive. Both of these

> assumptions are contradicted in the literature. Thus, contrary to

> common assumption, when a linear no-threshold model is the true model

> for radon risk for individuals, higher average radon concentration

> for a county does not necessarily imply a higher lung cancer rate for

> the county. In addition, valid inference from county-level ecologic

> analysis and the elimination of the ecologic bias cannot be achieved

> with the addition of county-wide summary variables

> (including "stratification" variables) to the regression equation.

> Using hypothetical data for smoking and radon and assuming a true

> positive association for radon and lung cancer for individuals, the

> analysis demonstrates that a negative county-level ecologic

> regression can be induced when correlation coefficients for smoking

> and radon within county are in the range -0.05 to 0.05. Since adverse

> effects for radon at low exposures are supported by analysis of miner

> data (all data and data restricted only to low cumulative exposures),

> a meta-analysis of indoor radon studies, and molecular and cellular

> studies, and since ecologic regressions are burdened by severe

> limitations, the negative results from Cohen's analysis are most

> likely due to bias and should be rejected.

>

> 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. You can view the Radsafe archives at

http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/