Re: Cohen's Fallacy

[Ted de Castro <tdc@XRAYTED.COM>]

Rad health wrote:

> >Maybe this is what Field et al did -- I will have to get their papers and

> >see.  But it seems to me that applying some kind of statistical correction

> >for smoking that says, in effect, since the national risk of lung cancer

> >from

> >smoking is x, and the national (or statewide) fraction of smokers is y,

> >then

> >x*y *observed lung cancers are attributable to smoking and the rest to

> >radon,

> >doesn't really cut it.   All that would tell you is the fraction of lung

> >cancers that MIGHT be attributed to smoking.

> 

> Regarding a smoking correction - As posted before on this list by others,

> this is the most powerful way to adjust for smoking.





As I read this posting and reply - its says that the mathematical model

suggested by Ruth IS INDEED that which was used to correct for smoking. 

IS that what you meant to say?

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

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/