[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Cohen's Fallacy
From: "Rad health" <healthrad@hotmail.com>
> Jim,
>
> It's the quality of the study not the quantity that counts. The ecologic
> study can precisely tell you something wrong.
Right. Cohen also agrees. There's a SMALL probability that a study is
wrong. When the study is large the probability goes way down. When more than
one independent study produce the same result the probability goes down.
When hundreds of studies all agree, the probability is nil (or 10 - many
zeros.) Both implausible and improbable. Other wise know as no chance.
And, as shown repeatedly, Field's study has negligible quality.
Jim
>> 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/