[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Cohen's Fallacy



> From: "Rad health" <healthrad@HOTMAIL.COM>

> 

> Jim,

> 

> I don't defend Dr. Cohen's study at all.



No kidding. But my (perhaps too-cryptic) English seems confuse you too.



I meant that instead of Cohen's hundreds of individual, independent, studies

that produce significant, confirmed, substantiated, results that correlate

actual radon and lung cancer in real populations (that are also confirmed by

many independent studies with independent data), you defend Field's one very

small,  poor, unconfirmed "study," unreplicated (and likely unreplicable).

No one who knows anything about statistical analysis can/will do that.



Also, that you seem to just make up "data" in your statements (like "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." Refs?) as though they are meaningful

or relevant, but which seem to be just more disinformation for EPA's

political/funding purposes (but may just be lack of knowledge of analytical

basics - using "epidemiology" to obfuscate the lack of statistical validity

in the basis for trashing Cohen).  Cohen has 50 years at the heart of

science, performing and publishing rigorous, valid, analyses, still stand

against the "establishment" that produces disinformation to con scientific

and numeric illiterates (innumerates) - mostly "policy-makers" but the

non-specialist technical community as well.



I don't know where you're a student, but when (if) you get beyond your

brainwashing in some Samet kind of Epi Dept., you can sue to get your money

back.  I'm sure Cohen would be a highly credible witness for the plaintiff.

Reminds me of Steve Wing, essentially a Sociology major with a statistics

course, manipulating a small anomaly in a small group into an

establishment-funded "career. "



Jim



>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/

> 



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

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/