Field's Input

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

Don, 



My request for Bill's input into his own study was for the purpose of

correcting your erroneous assertion that had he not used 4.23 WLM intervals

in 4 of the 5 when, in fact, he had.  BTW, I haven't seen any retractions

from you of late (or at all).



If Bill had merely presented the facts of his study and his position on our

statements, there would have been no problem.  Big people (i.e., not

children) can agree to disagree without getting ugly.  There was no need for

statements like:



>>on 1/25/02 3:20 PM, Field, R. William at bill-field@UIOWA.EDU wrote:

>> Michael,

>> 

>> I keep answering these questions, but you do not appear to understand the

>> answers....

>> 

> >... I really do not know how many times I have to say this to be

>>understandable to you....

>> 

>> ... It is not smoke and mirrors, but it would likely take you several

>>semesters of statistics and epidemiology to understand how it is done...

>>



As for his off-list suggestion, there was no "mere suggestion" about it.

His posting was a thinly veiled attack on the individual making the

argument, not the individual's argument.  In my experience, when a person

starts throwing barbs of a personal nature, it indicates that they have

little confidence in their position.



Dr. Field needs to understand that if they EPA is going to use his study to

try and justify their radon program (and thereby the radon industry), his

study had better stand up to significant scrutiny and not just rest on the

plaudits of individuals who may not have made any significant review of the

study itself... much less track down the myriad of secondary studies used to

support the conclusions of the IRLCS.



While letters-to-the-editor of scientific journals are well and good, those

who do not subscribe to the specific epidemiological journal (like me) do

not learn of the criticisms of individual studies even though such studies

may be used as the basis for regulatory initiatives, especially in this

case.  Besides that, what journal is the debate of this study to be held?  I

count no less than eight (8) different journals where the bulk of this study

has been published.



But it's not about me, Don.  I'm just some yahoo from Amarillo, TX.  It's

about the millions of people across this country that the EPA has scared

into believing that they're not safe in their homes because of some

invisible radioactive gas that has NEVER been shown to be remotely

deleterious at the levels at which the EPA's rules attempt to control.  What

the EPA says with the utmost of confidence is a big, fat, whopping unproven

hypothesis that most would equate to a "lie" when confronted with what the

research data actually shows or is able to prove.



As a counterpoint, I draw your attention to the Russian Radon Hospital

references I recently posted.



v/r

Michael



on 1/26/02 9:44 AM, Rad health at healthrad@hotmail.com wrote:



> 

> Michael,

> 

> Your the one who drug Dr. Field into this discussion. If you did not want

> his views, why did you ask for them?  Was his response really that

> insulting.  His response appeared more frustrated than insulting? He had to

> respond to your mischaracterizations once you challenged him to respond.  He

> merely suggested that you either write a letter to the American Journal of

> Epidemiology or help the TRAB respond by drafting a letter in the Billet.

> 

> Don



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

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/