Re: Cohen's Refutation of LNT

["field" <bill-field@UIOWA.EDU>]

Kai,



We published an ecologic study very early on before we followed up with a

case control study.



: Health Phys 1994 Mar;66(3):263-9 Related Articles, Books, LinkOut





Residential radon exposure and lung cancer: evidence of an urban factor in

Iowa.



Neuberger JS, Lynch CF, Kross BC, Field RW, Woolson RF.



Department of Preventive Medicine, University of Kansas School of Medicine,

Kansas City 66160-7313.



An ecological study of lung cancer, cigarette smoking, and radon exposure

was conducted in 20 Iowa counties. County-based lung cancer incidence data

for white female residents of Iowa were stratified according to radon level

and smoking status. Cancer incidence data for the period 1973-1990 were

obtained from the State Health Registry of Iowa. Smoking level was

determined from a randomly mailed survey. Radon level was determined

according to an EPA supported charcoal canister survey. Within low smoking

counties, rates for all lung cancer and small cell carcinoma were

significantly lower (p < 0.05) in the high radon counties relative to the

medium and low radon counties. However, within high smoking counties, rates

for all lung cancer, adenocarcinoma, and small cell carcinoma were

significantly higher (p < 0.05) in the high radon counties relative to the

low radon counties. Variations in socioeconomic data for these counties,

available through the 1980 and 1990 census, did not explain these results.

Lung cancer rates also were significantly increased in urban counties even

after holding smoking status constant. Multivariate analyses revealed

significant interactions between smoking, urbanization, radon levels, and

lung cancer. The results of this hypothesis generating study will be tested

in a case/control study now ongoing in Iowa. Analysis will need to include

separate evaluations by smoking status, radon level, and residence in urban

or rural areas for the major morphologic types of lung cancer.



Regards, Bill



----- Original Message -----

From: Kai Kaletsch <info@eic.nu>

To: Rad health <healthrad@HOTMAIL.COM>

Cc: <radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu>

Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2002 10:51 AM

Subject: Re: Cohen's Refutation of LNT





> > He would say the ecologic study was good to form hypotheses, but the

> > hypotheses have been proven wrong by the more rigorous case-control

> studies.

>

> Could anyone please provide a reference where a hypothesis has ever been

> formed based on the ecological radon data? So far I have only seen

> regressions of the COUNTY risk. I am not aware of a single INDIVIDUAL risk

> model that has been constructed to explain the county data.

>

> Could anyone please provide a reference where such a hypothesis has been

> tested by a case control study. The studys I have seen simply find risk

> coefficients for a linear model. Would anyone really hypothesise a linear

> individual risk model by looking at the county data?

>

> Thanks,

>

> Kai

>

>

> ************************************************************************

> 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/