[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Objectivity
Dear John and other LNT evaluators,
Bias, I do have - and it has changed.
I asked Goffman, crusader for LNT, "So a little radiation is a little bad. To whole populations, it adds up?"
"You got it!", he said.
Gradually, I realized that was inconsistent with every prescription I write, all of which have LD 50s (lethal doses).
Cohen's work really sold (biased) me to believing that ionizing radiation (like sunshine and medicine), was good in the right person, at the right
time, at the right dose. That would contradicts LNT.
Cohen's evaluation of the total USA population (to which we'd infer), bypasses many selection biases (like choice of outlier location, Iowa). Cohen's
vast data shows minimal variation within vs variation without (less variation in county lung cancer mortality rates where home radon 1.0 - 5.0 pCi/l
than they vary from county rates where <0.5 pCi/l radon). That is the essence of all statistical tests of significance. With smoking, Cohen's data
confirmed other studies - unlike Iowa, which "statistically adjusted". Only 32% of Iowa "controls" smoked (vs 86% of Iowa lung cancer cases). Second
degree info like that permits selective distortions.
New work IS essential to prove causality - a double blind placebo controlled test. Cohen agrees. Field points out it's difficulty with home radon. I
am contemplating non-radon radiation, like Cameron's package(or placebo) under bed.
What Cohen's exhaustive epidemiology does prove (according to statistician Otto Raabe on radsafe) is that LNT does not fit lung cancer mortality rates
and mean home radon content in 70 % of USA counties. Agreed?
More "grandstanding" seems needed to impress some of your goverment regulator associates.
Howard Long
"Jacobus, John (OD/ORS)" wrote:
> Howard,
> I do not think the word is dismissed, as much as evaluated. I am not an
> epidemiologist, so I will not claim to know all of the work that goes into
> the analysis of a study. I think that are the issues, not that there is a
> lot of data. There are people who are trained and get paid to do studies
> and analyze data. And I am sure that new studies are performed as better
> data arises. Dr. Cohen's studies were done years ago. Why should new
> studies using new data not be done? Is it wrong because different answers
> are obtained?
>
> What I see here is not a discussion of scientific merit, but political
> posturing by a few. When you question the use of statistical adjustments,
> it is because it is poor epidemiological work or its use leads to a result
> you do not agree with? It is possible you are too biased.
>
> If Dr. Cohen's work is so profound, why does he need an "attention getter?"
>
> And Jim, do not bombard me with abstracts and bombastic rhetoric.
>
> -- John
> John Jacobus, MS
> Certified Health Physicist
> 3050 Traymore Lane
> Bowie, MD 20715-2024
>
> E-mail: jenday1@email.msn.com (H)
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: hflong@postoffice.pacbell.net
> [mailto:hflong@postoffice.pacbell.net]
> Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 6:38 PM
> To: Jacobus, John (OD/ORS)
> Cc: RadSafe
> Subject: Re: Objectivity
>
> John,
> I like and support your measured comments below.
> What I do not like is the dismissal by the American Cancer Association and
> some LNT regulators of Cohen's epic demonstration, which has decisive error
> bar patterns even with smoking and other confounders compared with data -
> not statistical "adjustment", as Field's limited numbers required.
>
> Cohen's "Grandstanding" is a brilliant attention-getter for work that
> deserves the attention -, and well-earned respect.
> . . .
> ************************************************************************
> 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/
************************************************************************
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/