Re: Iowa Radon Study

["Rad health" <healthrad@HOTMAIL.COM>]

I don't know the details of the pooling, but it is not the same as a meta 

analysis.  In pooling the discrete data from each study are used, unlike a 

meta-analysis.  The downside to the pooling will likely be that each study 

will not be able to use its best data since the input variables have to be 

similar between studies.



Don



>From: maury <maury@webtexas.com>

>To: radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu

>CC: Rad health <healthrad@HOTMAIL.COM>, RuthWeiner@AOL.COM

>Subject: Re: Iowa Radon Study

>Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 23:17:29 -0600

>

>Is the "pooling" mentioned below intended to become some kind of giant 

>meta-analysis? If so, it might work wonders to increase the mysticism

>surrounding the threat of radon. I recall watching Carol Browner present 

>the meta-analysis of passive smoking to the Waxman committee. It was

>entertaining and instructive - a great lesson in straining at statistical 

>gnats in an attempt to document an issue without supporting data and with

>inappropriate analyses. The CRS statistician who followed her destroyed the 

>scientific credibility of the study. But no matter, scientific evidence

>and legal evidence often are totally unrelated. EPA "won" that controversy; 

>maybe EPA can "win" on radon with another grand meta-analysis; then we can

>get on with the next magnificent extravaganza for (this time) FDA with 

>fatty foods.  Maybe another meta-analysis?      (sigh)

>

>I sincerely hope you folks are not headed down that path. I don't think we 

>can afford it.

>Maury Siskel              maury@webtexas.com

>PS  No arbitrary slur is intended against meta-analysis. It can be a fine 

>analytical tool, but as with all scientific methods, meaning is a function

>of how the work is done.

>======================================================

>

> > >From: RuthWeiner@AOL.COM

> >

> > Finally, I, for one, read the radon posts with great interest.  I do 

>have a

> > couple of questions: (1) what agency funded the Iowa Study.

>

>Rad health wrote:

>

> > Ruth, I am interested on why you ask that question?

> > If you read the Iowa paper, it says in the acknowledgements that the 

>study

> > was funded by the National Institutes of Environmental Health Sciences.

> > It also says the views expressed in the paper do not necessarily reflect

> > those of the NIEHS.  The NIEHS also funded the combined Conn, Utah and 

>S.

> > Idaho Radon Study.

> >

> > Ruth, I agree that these issues should be approached with common sense.

> > There has probably been more research on radon health effects than 

>almost

> > any other carcinogen or non carcinogen. The upcoming pooling is the 

>largest

> > pooling ever done on any chemical or radioactive material.

>

>--  snipped  ----------

>





_________________________________________________________________

Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. 

http://www.hotmail.com



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

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/