Iowa Radon Study methodology

John and radsafers,

Field's "Rebuttal" included, " The participants' smoking histories do

not need to match the smoking histories of the controls since the

effect of

smoking can be adjusted for using standard statistical methods."

This followed Klaus Beckers' statement in Topics Under Debate , p79,

Radiation Protection Dosimetry V95,#1 pp75-81(2001), "Incidentally,

it should be noted that in the Iowa Lung cancer Study by Field et al,

86% of the

lung cancer cases were smokers, but only 32% of the controls."

So, "controls" were NOT matched. "Controls" had few smokers, vs

cases..

Who accepts this statistical "adjustment"- especially in the selected

1% location of a large mortality study where there was NOT less lung

cancer with more radon?

---------------------------------------

Dr. Long,

I accept it as apparently do the reviewers for the American Journal

of Epidemiology. In addition, the AJE went out to thousand of

epidemiologists and biostatisticians and not one responded to the

journal in the form of a letter-to-the-editor concerning the

methodology used in the paper. In fact, I have found comments

praising the study both inside and outside the Epidemiology

community. Even CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, the Lancet,

etc. reference the Iowa Study and not Cohen's studies.

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/