Re: Cohen's latest reward

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

On Wed, 16 Jan 2002, Rad health wrote:



> Dr. Cohen,

>

> In looking back at the archives, you have changed the wording and the amount

> of your offer quite a bit.

>

> Drs. Field and Smith have repeatedly "specifically suggested" in their Forum

> paper and follow-up papers in Health Physics that one of the major factors,

> among others, most likely causing your paradoxical findings is cross-level

> bias or inter county variability.



	--These are not specific causes. I have easily concocted and

published explanations for my data based on cross level bias, but they are

completely implausible. To test plausibility, a suggestion must be

specific. For example, Lubin suggested that there may be a difference in

radon levels between smokers and non-smokers; that is a specific

suggestion. I was able to show that the required differences would be

completely implausible, so there was no reward.





 You previously said they do not have to

> perform the calculations to test it, you will do that. Let me repeat, they

> specifically suggested a cause, namely cross-level bias or intercounty

> variability. You have not tested whether or not their specific suggestion is

> the cause of your paradoxial findings.



	--You do not understand what I mean by specific. I even explained

in my earlier offers that I meant specific enough for a calculation to be

carried out.



 In fact, you never answered their

> last letter in the Health Physics Journal.  I know you said the HPJ would

> not allow you a follow-up letter, but you responded on Radsafe to Lubin's

> last letter in detail.



	--If you will raise specific issues in their last letter, I will

respond on RADSAFE. I responded on RADSAFE to Lubin's last letter because

someone asked about it on RADSAFE. Please limit your request to a few

issues.



  You said previously that all someone has to do is

> offer a plausible cause and you will test it yourself, but you haven't.



	--I said a specific cause





> If someone publishes a peer reviewed paper, within one year from today,

> showing that it is possible that cross-level bias or inter county

> variability caused your finding, will you also present the AMERICAN CANCER

> SOCIETY with a $5,000 (your previous reward amount) award in the name of

> Smith and Field?



	--It would have to be a specific cause that I could not show is

very highly implausible. By simply suggesting a specific cause and getting

it published, they would get the $1000 reward. I have shown that cross

level bias could have caused my discrepancy with LNT with specific

examples, but these examples were completely implausible.



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

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/