distribution of responses on Radsafe

[Ruth Sponsler <jk5554@YAHOO.COM>]

I doubt that any sociological type paper concerning

the distribution of different type responses on

Radsafe to Don(s) will very accurate because many

persons of _all_ persuasions on the radon issue are

busy and basically have higher priorities than to

respond to an anonymous person who 'badgers' an author

heavily.  



Regarding 'private postings' to you ('Don'), the

existence and tone of these postings and any

difference between them and the public postings here

on Radsafe is basically unverifiable because no one

else but you (Don) has the private postings sent to

Don's Hotmail address.  Isn't that unscientific,

because it's not 'falsifiable?'  [at least if you

adhere to Karl Popper's philosophy of science].



I think that many folks here see the 'big picture' and

wonder if you would pursue the author of a study that

doubted the time-correlation PM10 studies, as doggedly

as you have pursued Dr. Cohen, who doubts the results

of the Iowa Radon LC Study.  It's my personal opinion

that the sample sizes in the time-correlation PM10

studies are much stronger than those in the Iowa radon

study, and that PM10 is more solidly implicated as a

respiratory hazard than is radon, as these studies

have also been replicated in both the U.S.A. and in

Europe.  (reference citations available).  



As a student, I believe that smoking is something that

should be controlled for in any case-control study of

radon effects, because it is such an absolutely

dominant cause of lung cancer.  If I were to do a case

control study about radon, which I agree is much

stronger than a regression study, _provided that

sample size and methodology is adequate_, I would

study nothing but non-smokers.  I think that

inadequate control for smoking is the major weakness

of the Iowa study, along with relatively small sample

size.  I would also study these non-smokers in a

geographic region that had a very wide variation in

radon levels, rather than in Iowa.  Tennessee is a

good example.  



However, if I were a grad student considering a thesis

topic in respiratory epidemiology, I would actually

NOT choose radon.  I would want a topic on which I

believed that I could obtain a relatively definitive

result in a limited amount of time in the doctoral

program.  I would choose either smoking (probably too

obvious!), particulate matter, or perhaps an

occupational respiratory hazard, of which there are

many possibilities, ranging from coal dust to textile

lint or volatilized textile dyes to even the wood

particles in a furniture factory.



My opinion is my own.  I have no fear regarding my

job, as I am not affiliated with a nuclear industry.  



 

~Ruth 2 aka Ruth Sponsler



--- Rad health <healthrad@HOTMAIL.COM> wrote:u to try 



 It is interesting how the public postings and

> the private postings to 

> me differ.  Why is it all the people who posted to

> me privately do not post 

> publicly?  Are you fearful for your job?   Feel free

> to log on as Don.  



> This experiment concerning perceptions on the

> Radsafe list has been very 

> informative as compared to the discussions

> concerning these topics on an IH 

> and epidemiology server.  Paper will appear down the

> road.  

> 

> Don

> 

>





__________________________________________________

Do You Yahoo!?

Great stuff seeking new owners in Yahoo! Auctions! 

http://auctions.yahoo.com

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

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/