[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Cohen's Fallacy
Jim,
I don't defend Dr. Cohen's study at all. The inverse relationship was
published both in the first paper by Field and later acknowledged by Dr.
Cohen on this list. I am merely stating the facts as presented. My post was
in response to Ruth's question. I
Don
>From: Muckerheide <muckerheide@MEDIAONE.NET>
>Reply-To: Muckerheide <muckerheide@MEDIAONE.NET>
>To: <radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu>
>Subject: Re: Cohen's Fallacy
>Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2002 20:51:33 +0000
>
> From: "Rad health" <healthrad@HOTMAIL.COM>
>
> > There is a huge inverse correlation in Cohen's county level data between
> > smoking and radon. It is also likely correlated within the county level
> > with such other factors as socioeconomic level. Cohen can not account
>for
> > these within county correlations for even one county and the
>correlations
> > are not linear among counties.
> >
> > Don
>
>Don,
>
>I'd ask for data, but you seem to just "make it up" as you go. Yet you
>arbitrarily defend one small, unreplicated (unreplicable?), study with poor
>dose data (that depends solely on dose data for credible results), in a
>poor
>location (maybe intentional by the funding agencies?), that is contrary to
>voluminous, established, substantial data, as "defining" radon dose effects
>to support the EPA/radon industry. It seems that people who understand and
>apply data and statistical analysis to reflect the real world, instead of
>preordained conclusions, can't buy it.
>
>Jim Muckerheide
>
>
> >> From: RuthWeiner@aol.com
> >> To: healthrad@hotmail.com, radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu
> >> Subject: Re: Cohen's Fallacy
> >> Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2002 16:11:17 EST
> >>
> >> In a message dated 1/27/02 10:22:58 AM Mountain Standard Time,
> >> healthrad@HOTMAIL.COM writes:
> >>
> >>
> >>> smoking status and residential radon are uncorrelated within each
> >>> county (which seems unlikely),
> >>
> >> Now maybe I am stupid, but what these authors seem to be saying is that
> >> residential radon and smoking status are correlated; e.g., higher radon
> >> levels occur in houses where there are smokers. Did they mean to say
>that
> >> the EFFECT of smoking and residential radon are synergistic? Or did
>they
> >> really mean what they said, which can only be interpreted that smokers
>get
> >> some radon exposure from smoking?
> >>
> >> Given the imprecision of the language, I am not sure what conclusions
>can
> >> be
> >> drawn.
> >>
> >>
> >> Ruth Weiner, Ph. D.
> >> ruthweiner@aol.com
> >
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at
>http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.
> >
> > ************************************************************************
> > 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/
>
_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
************************************************************************
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/