Re: TRAB and back to Re: Lung cancer mortality from radon versus....

[Michael Ford <michaelford@cox-internet.com>]

Dr. Field,



I too regret being dragged into the mud, but your admirer, Don, insisted on

ignoring honest questions in preference of personal smear tactics.



The TRAB was contacted by the editor of the Billet indicating that you were

going to publish a rebuttal to the TRAB letter.  Your recollection about

requesting a correction is very different from mine.  I don't recall us ever

speaking, and I don't recall any request for a correction.  Your rebuttal

was published.



I will send our rejoinder to the Billet Editor and to you so that you may

publish your reply in the same issue. I hope you feel that is a fair

approach.



Your rebuttal still does not make the issues we have with the study go away.



If ALL methods were able to achieve statistical significance for the ALL and

ALIVE cases, why not just come out and say it?  Your own words were used as

the basis for our first criticism.



Just curious.  How do you decide to place 15% of the subjects into the

highest exposure category (>16.95 WLM) prior to analyzing the data??  Don't

you have to determine what the highest exposure category is by analyzing the

data?  Why 16.95?  Why not 16.0?  Why not 17.0 WLM?  16.0 WLM would give you

4 WLM intervals.  It would seem that the uncertainty alone associated with

recall would limit you to 1 significant figure.  But try as I might, I have

not been able to reproduce your claim that the intervals are equivalent, not

to mention the fact that there is no limit to your upper exposure category.

Care to give it a try?  Maybe my abacus is missing a bead or two.



Finally,  you cannot possibly make the claim that you controlled for smoking

by using a "standard statistical method" (modeling).  Your most critical

confounder is smoking!  It is an OVERWHELMING influence in your study.  It

is the PRIMARY cause of lung cancer!  Your study attempts to define an

association between radon and lung cancer that is, as yet, undefined, but is

hypothesized to produce the same effect!  It is mind-boggling that this lung

cancer study went to such great lengths to match for age, residency and

number of children (was that intentional or luck?), but made little if any

attempt to match for the number one cause of lung cancer.



Bill, perhaps we will agree to disagree in the end.  The statements made

were not "erroneous allegations" as you have characterized.  No retraction

was therefore necessary.



About the timing.... your letter was published in the July 2001 Billet.

Since I am not a South Texas Chapter Member, I did not see your letter until

just before our meeting on 21 July 01.  Due to Texas Law, we cannot discuss

items that are not published on our agenda two weeks prior to the meeting.

Our next meeting was not until 3 November 01.  Following 9/11 our attention

was diverted to issues of security within our state that consumed most of my

time (free time, I have a full-time job in addition to my responsibilities

with TRAB).  We completed the bulk of that work in our January 2002 meeting.



I have discussed a response to your letter with my fellow TRAB members on

numerous occasions.  We have been uncomfortable with the length of time that

has passed since the letter was published, especially since we were accused

of lying in our letter to the governor.  However, we felt that was a much

lower priority than addressing the immediate needs of the security issues.



In the end, we had a responsibility to inform the Governor of the baseless

EPA radon in water regulations that were being promulgated and the

deleterious effects those regulations would have on the state.  AND again,

the EPA was trumpeting your study as one of the prime justifications for its

new rules.  If I were in your position, would I have appreciated seeing that

in a letter/  Probably not.  So I can certainly understand why you would be

upset and/or disappointed.



However, I contend that the statements were not erroneous.  They were an

accurate depiction of the shortcomings we had identified.  Those

shortcomings may have been previously discussed on RADSAFE prior to our

letter.  However, they were verified when I reviewed the copy of the study

that you kindly mailed to me.  And I actually read it!



BTW:  I was asking you to weigh in on the conversation I was attempting to

have with Don X regarding the intervals you cited in your study.  'Seems he

thought I was being ridiculous when I said your study had (or attempted to

have) 4.23 WLM intervals.



Have a great evening,

Michael





on 1/24/02 12:47 PM, Field, R. William at bill-field@UIOWA.EDU wrote:



> I logged back onto Radsafe merely to offer a suggestion to Dr. Cohen

> concerning how he could improve his ecologic analyses.  But then, Michael Ford

> asked in his last post on this subject if I would like to step in on this

> different debate.

> 

> Posting on these subjects is like getting drug in quick sand surrounded by

> alligators.  But, because I have been asked to comment I will.  Not commenting

> gives the impression the characterizations from Mr. Ford are correct.

> 

> As I told Michael before, after their letter to then Gov. Bush was published

> in the Billett, I received a half dozen emails from that local Health Physics

> Chapter asking me to respond to what they perceived as the misrepresentations

> of the Iowa Radon Lung Cancer Study in the letter.  I was sent a copy of the

> Billet and agreed that the Texas Radiation Boards (TRAB) letter (which was

> published in the Billet) did not present the facts clearly.  I contacted

> members of the TRAB and was told Mr. Ford drafted the letter, but it was

> approved by the whole TRAB.  I later found out that many of the erroneous

> statements in the letter were influenced by postings on Radsafe about the Iowa

> Study.  I spoke to Mr. Ford and indicated I did not think that Radsafe was a

> scientific forum and a good place to determine the validity of a study.  It

> was obvious the TRAB was not going to issue a correction to their letter so I

> was left with writing a letter-to-the-editor of the Billet, which was

> graciously published. To this date, I have not heard any official response

> from the TRAB concerning the letter.  I have attached the letter below (I

> think it was the last draft), which I sent to the Billet.

> 

> I would be happy to discuss any of the issues by direct email. Posting on

> Radsafe appear to have a life on their own somewhat like the numerous lives of

> a cat. 

>  <snippt>



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

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/