Re: residual confounding

[BERNARD L COHEN <blc+@PITT.EDU>]

On Tue, 8 Jan 2002, John Williams wrote:



> I think it is important to determine the the source of the strong

> inverse association between radon and smoking.  Many feel that this

> inverse relationship is what is driving your findings.  There is



	--It cannot be driving my findings because it is opposing my

findings; if it were not present, my findings would even be more negative

for LNT.





> residual confounding of your smoking data that can not be corrected

> because of the cross-level bias inherent in the aggregate form of the

> data.



	--In my analysis, smoking prevalence is not a confounder because

it appears explicitly in the BEIR theory that is being tested. BEIR has a

separate LNT theory for smokers and non-smokers. Of course intensity of



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

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/