Re: Mechanisms are Needed to Explain Cohen's Data

[Kai Kaletsch <info@eic.nu>]

----- Original Message -----

From: "Jim Muckerheide" <jmuckerheide@cnts.wpi.edu>

To: "Kai Kaletsch" <info@eic.nu>; "BERNARD L COHEN" <blc+@pitt.edu>

Cc: "RadSafe" <radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu>

Sent: Saturday, January 12, 2002 4:46 AM

Subject: RE: Mechanisms are Needed to Explain Cohen's Data



>Ken Bogen addressed the biological mechanisms, and showed that EPA's

>environmental radon data by county for the US vs. women lung cancer

>mortality 1950-54 (smoking prevalence 4% and 11% in two age groups)

>confirms Cohen's data showing beneficial results at low doses. See,

>e.g.:

>http://www.belleonline.com/n3v72.html



>See the two paragraphs under "Materials and Methods," and Fig 2a!



My point is not about any particular risk model. I introduced a mechanism by

which the conversion between the quantity being measured (usually radon) and

the quantity of interest (whatever risk model you choose) can be affected by

smoking. I have no idea how this affects Dr. Cohen's results. For all I

know, it could move them in the wrong direction. My comment was not about

LNT, but about how we go about explaining our world.



In my world view, nature is explainable. It seems that in other people's

world view, nature is intrinsically unexplainable. They don't say that

nature is difficult to explain and they don't say that the explanation

doesn't have to be apparent in one data set. They are saying that Cohen's

paradox is due to cross confounders which may never be identifiable. We are

not talking about Fermat's last theorem here. We are talking about a pretty

straight forward observation.



>You have recommended that the LNT-defenders consider mechanisms to

>support their position, but the very best of the science establishment

>have spent a decade trying, and failing, to produce any plausible

>mechanism to make the LNT theory "explain" the factual observations,

>without just rationalizations parroted here, and producing poor science

>and obfuscated data to support the LNT.



Unfortunately, I think that the debate has been too polarized and caused a

lot of people to steer clear of it. Personally, I think that the debate

about whether Dr. Cohen's paper disproves LNT beyond any shadow of a doubt

is not very fruitful. I am more interested in what Cohen's data shows rather

than what it doesn't show. I.e. what is the most reasonable model

considering all data. (But that will be another post...).



Best Regards,



Kai Kaletsch









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

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/