[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Cohen's Refutation of LNT
Isn't it interesting that Steve Milloy lists Colditz as one of the worst
junk scientists but posts an article by Field as good science?
----- Original Message -----
From: Jim Muckerheide <jmuckerheide@cnts.wpi.edu>
To: Rad health <healthrad@HOTMAIL.COM>; <hflong@postoffice.pacbell.net>
Cc: <radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu>
Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2002 4:39 AM
Subject: RE: Cohen's Refutation of LNT
> Don, You don't get it (or do but have an agenda to be accepted by the
establishment - maybe want to follow Samet?)
>
> It is given that good, substantial, case-control is better. Consider the
size and quality of the nurses study. Poor, small, inconsistent, radon
case-control studies do not invalidate the clear and certain Cohen/Colditz
results!
>
> Colditz was said by others to have wanted out of the biased, dishonest,
anti-Cohen "debate" (which ignores the hundreds of substantial confirmatory
studies), led by people who have a history of attacking funding of people
that speak up. (Even in his position would he have been threatened instead?)
>
> He did not, then, and has not to my knowledge ever questioned the strong
case of the validity of the results in his 1994 paper. It sounds like you
can ask him directly. Let us know if he supports your non-scientific
rhetorical disinformation on the unambiguous validity of Cohen's results.
>
> I would expect that he has greater scientific and personal integrity than
that. But from recent exxperience you can't really tell about the epi
world!?
>
> Jim
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rad health [mailto:healthrad@hotmail.com]
> Sent: Sat 09-Feb-02 10:21 PM
> To: Jim Muckerheide; hflong@postoffice.pacbell.net
> Cc: radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu
> Subject: RE: Cohen's Refutation of LNT
>
> Jim,
>
> From his (Colditz) classes you would learn he thinks the case-control
> studies and prospective cohort studies, like the nurses health study he is
> involved with, are the preferred methodologies for epidemiology (ask him).
> He does not have to offer money to explain his findings in the more
rigorous
> studies. You would never hear Colditz say an ecologic study invalidates
the
> 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.
> Why do you think no epidemiologist has worked with Cohen since Colditz?
I
> really think he is a bit embarrassed by the affiliation.
>
>
> >From: "Jim Muckerheide" <jmuckerheide@cnts.wpi.edu>
> >To: <hflong@postoffice.pacbell.net>, "Rad health" <healthrad@HOTMAIL.COM>
> >CC: <radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu>
> >Subject: RE: Cohen's Refutation of LNT
> >Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2002 21:34:38 -0500
> >
> >Rad health wrote:
> >
> ><snip>
> > > Howard, speaking of real epidemiologists. Try asking Dr. Colditz, an
> > > epidemiologist at Harvard School of Public Health what he thinks of
Dr.
> > > Cohen's interpretation of his ecologic findings. It would make an
> > > interesting letter in itself.
> >
> >Funny you should ask (not that you would actually learn anything):
> >
> >Cohen BL, Colditz GA.
> >Tests of the linear-no threshold theory for lung cancer induced by
exposure
> >to radon.
> >Environ Res 1994 Jan;64(1):65-89
> >ABSTRACT:
> >The linear theory used to extrapolate the cancer risk of radon exposure
> >from high levels where direct data are available to low levels
encountered
> >in homes is tested by comparing lung cancer rates, m, and average radon
> >levels, r, in numerous U.S. states and counties. It is shown that most
> >problems normally associated with ecological studies do not apply here.
The
> >data show a very strong tendency for lung cancer rates, corrected for
> >smoking prevalence (S), to decrease with increasing r, in sharp contrast
to
> >the opposite behavior predicted by the theory. It is shown that even a
> >perfect negative r-S correlation cannot explain this discrepancy. Actual
> >r-S correlations are only a few percent. Several other possible
> >explanations for the discrepancy are explored, but none can reduce it by
> >more than about 25%.
> >
> >The paper is strong on the science, with results only confirmed, never
> >refuted.
> >
> > > Wonder why Dr. Colditz does not respond to the articles writen by
other
> > > epidemiologists such as Drs. Doll, Field, Archer, Goldsmith, Darby,
and
> > > Lubin criticizing Dr. Cohen's interpretation of his findings?
> >
> >Unforunately Colditz decided long ago that there was no science (and only
a
> >distraction from the many very substantial studies that he directs) in
> >arguing with the cabal of politically-motivated "epis" and their
> >disinformation (that also have damaged careers of people who tell the
truth
> >-and fund those who follow the bureaucratic mandate).
> >
> >JIm Muckerheide
> >
> > > Don Smith
> > >
> > > >From: hflong@postoffice.pacbell.net
> > > >Reply-To: hflong@pacbell.net
> > > >To: Rad health <healthrad@hotmail.com>
> > > >CC: hflong@pacbell.net, radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu
> > > >Subject: Re:
> > > >Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2002 14:45:52 -0800
> > > >
> > > >Dear Harvey Griswold and other LNT Proponents
> > > >"In a recent paper, we have demonstrated that the confounding factors
> >in
> > > >the
> > > >radon data of Cohen (1995) do not invalidate these data for risk
> > > >assessments,
> > > >contrary to the claims of some epidemiologists (Seiler and Alvarez
> >2000)."
> > > >
> > > >Truth, not authority, decides science.
> > > >
> > > >Howard Long
> > > >
> > > >Rad health wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Dr. Long,
> > > > >
> > > > > It is pretty obvious you are jealous of Dr. Field's work. He has
> > > >received
> > > > > numerous accolades from the EPA, NCI, NIEHS, past Health Physics
> >Society
> > > > > president to name just a few. I have been to meetings where he
has
> >had
> > > > > numerous standing ovations for the rigor of his design. When I
> >first
> > > >read
> > > > > your emails, I thought you actually knew something about
> >epidemiology.
> > > >I
> > > > > see that was an error.
> > > > >
> > > > > For someone who has never published a peer reviewed epidemiology
> >article
> > > >you
> > > > > are pretty bold in word.
> > > > >
> > > > > Cohen's fallacy lives!
> > > > >
> > > > > Harvey Griswald
> > > > > Harvard School of Public Health
> > > > >
> > > > > _________________________________________________________________
> > > > > MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
> > > > > http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
> > > >
> > >
> > > _________________________________________________________________
> > > 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/
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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/