The opinions expressed are strictly mine.
It's not about dose, it's about trust.
Let's look at the real problem, for a change.
Bill Lipton
liptonw@dteenergy.com
hflong@postoffice.pacbell.net wrote:
Editor's monopoly for bureaucracy to decide the world is flat? Please!
Cohen's data is so detailed, I keep returning from his website to the summary graphs. Impressive.Bill, I too am tired of the LNT conflict. However, where else are we to find diverse viewpoints for BIG decisions - medical exposure, waste disposal, energy, etc?
Howard Long
William V Lipton wrote:
"Stillllllllllllll going..." This is much much worse than the Energizer bunny. Here's one possible resolution.Dr. Cohen is always referring responders to his Web site. Such postings do not carry the credibility of something published in a peer reviewed journal. Has any of this work been so published? If not, why not?
IMHO, we should restrict this debate to such published material, or, as a minimum to material which has been accepted for publication in a reputable journal.
The opinions expressed are strictly mine.
It's not about dose, it's about trust.
Let's look at the real problem, for a change.Bill Lipton
liptonw@dteenergy.com"Field, R. William" wrote:
Dr. Cohen,We have given you many specific examples.
For example, we have previously stated that you are performing your stratifications based on confounders at the individual level, not the group level. Use aggregate level confounders for stratification if you want to improve your ecologic studies.
Regards, Bill Field
R. William Field, M.S, Ph.D.
College of Public Health
Research Scientist - Department of Epidemiology
Adjunct Professor - Department of Occupational and Environmental Health
Graduate Faculty - College of Public Health
N222 Oakdale Hall
University of Iowa
Iowa City, Iowa 52242319-335-4413 (phone)
319-335-4748 (fax)
mailto:bill-field@uiowa.eduAt 12:48 PM 01/22/2002 -0500, BERNARD L COHEN wrote:
> 2) They continue to say that cross-level bias and inter county variability************************************************************************ 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/
> caused your findings. Do you really have the data to show this is not the
> case?
--I need a specific example -- see above. If a specific example is
offered, it is up to me to supply the data required.> My most important question about the Field and Smith paper: Are adjustments
> made using aggregate data (smoking, education, etc.)usually used to adjust
> for confounding at the individual level - sufficient for use in adjusting at
> the county level?
--I do not "adjust" my data for anything. I treat confounding by
my method of stratification which is very much superior.> From reading their papers they say you may never find
> your answer because your data are lacking. Can you really say you have
> tested all the possibilities if you do not have the data you need to adjust
> for aggregate confounding?
--Providing the data is my problem. What I need is a
specific suggestion for which data are needed.