[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Dr. Long
The question was answered below your post.
>From: hflong@postoffice.pacbell.net
>Reply-To: hflong@postoffice.pacbell.net
>To: "Field, R. William" <bill-field@UIOWA.EDU>, radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu
>Subject: Re: Dr. Long
>Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 21:24:10 -0800
>
>Dear Professor Field,
>The only thing I do not understand is why you do not yet agree that the
>Iowa study
>1, cannot claim radon as a cause of lung cancer (as in reference to it in
>the
>American Cancer Society journal, CA) or 2, cannot support LNT.
>
>First, Iowa women, although obvious selection in Iowa, are a 1% outlier in
>lung
>cancer mortality association with radon in the USA. .
>Only a -0.3 SD was found for Iowa but >-3.0 SD for the USA.
>I am happy to read you do apply Iowa findings only to midwest women. Please
>inform
>CA.
>
>Second, to "adjust" for only 32% of controls smoking when 86% of cases
>smoked
>makes me (and TARB, given Ford's writings), incredulous of dependent
>inferences.
>Smoking's association with lung cancer is >10 x radon's. So error in
>memory of
>smoking (ubiquitous, I find ) could make radon protection from lung cancer
>(suggested by Cohen's findings) appear as cause (suggested by Iowa
>findings). We
>value placebo studies because the control match is identical!.
>
>Do you agree that these points do cloud inferences your study to,
>1, other populations than Iowa, and
>2, linear effect (harm) from home radon?
>
>Howard Long
>
>"Field, R. William" wrote:
>
> > Dr. Long,
> >
> > I have seen you make this post on at least 7 occasions. I do not
> > understand what response you are looking. Nor, do I understand your
>point
> > about an "outlier". The reasons why Iowa was chosen as a site for a
>radon
> > study has been presented to you on numerous occasions. The difference
>in
> > smoking percentages have been discussed frequently before including the
> > published literature (http://www.ntp.org.uk/951-TUD.pdf). If you do not
> > understand the answers, I understand that and I would welcome you
> > contacting me directly. If you are just be argumentative, I can likely
> > provide no answer that you would find acceptable.
> >
> > Bill Field
> >
> > At 10:31 AM 01/25/2002 -0800, you wrote:
> > >Don,
> > >I "keep saying this" - ie, "Selecting an outlier invalidates inference
>to
> > >the whole,"
> > >because neither you nor Fields has responded!
> > >Iowa women had only a -0.3 SD for lung ca mortality vs radon,
> > >where there was >-3.0 SD for the whole USA.
> > >
> > >Nor have you supplied data that could justify substituting statistical
> > >"adjustment" (extrapolation from outside studies and populations)
> > >for matching smokers (32% of controls vs 86% of Iowa cases).
> > >
> > >Each of these problems suggests that the Iowa case control study
> > >should not claim better "quality" than Cohen's epidemiologic study.
> > >Do you concede this?
> > >
> > >Not, going, going, going - but waiting, waiting, waiting!
> > >
> > >Howard Long
> > >
> > >Rad health wrote:
> > >
> > > > Howard,
> > > >
> > > > Why do you keep saying this. What point do you hope to make. Do
>you
> > > > believe if you say it enough someone will believe it if by chance
>they
> > > > understand it. This is silliness. Perform your double blind
>studies, who
> > > > is stopping you? Also, to save bandwidth, please edit your
>postings.
> > > >
> > > > Don
> > > >
> > > > >Mea culpa! I, too, extrapolated (estimated beyond data at hand)
>with "Iowa
> > > > >women - 1% outlier of USA lung cancer mortality, 1/radon." What IS
>in
> > > > >Cohen's data is that Iowa women had only 0.3 standard deviations
>of
> > > > >inverse association - lung cancer mortality vs radon, whereas p<
>0.001
> > > > >chance
> > > > >(many SDs) for whole USA (minus mobile CA, FL, AZ). So Iowa is
>different,
> > > > >clouding inference to the USA.
> > > > >
> > > > >We need placebo studies - identical controls!
> > > > >
> > > > >Howard Long
> > > >
> > > > _________________________________________________________________
> > > > 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/
>
>************************************************************************
>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/