[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Cohen's Fallacy
Jim,
It's the quality of the study not the quantity that counts. The ecologic
study can precisely tell you something wrong.
>From: Muckerheide <muckerheide@MEDIAONE.NET>
>Reply-To: Muckerheide <muckerheide@MEDIAONE.NET>
>To: Rad health <healthrad@HOTMAIL.COM>, <radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu>
>Subject: Re: Cohen's Fallacy
>Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 05:24:12 +0000
>
> > 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/
>
_________________________________________________________________
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/