[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Radon's linear dependency
John,
In a private email to you I wrote the
response (below) to a different email you sent directly to me so it may
be a bit difficult for others to track. In your previous email I
thought you were referring to the fact that the best use of ecologic
studies is to form hypotheses, not test them. Nonetheless, my post
was a response to Dr. Cohen regarding BEIR which showed that the relative
risks based on cumulative radon exposure are linear, but with a
dependency on age, pack-year rate of smoking, smoking duration,
etc. Dr. Cohen is using an ecologic study to test the validity of
the LNT. My previous point was to test the LNT or LNTassumption by
using collective dose assumptions does not add up to me. The reason
it does not add up is the association between radon exposure and risk
will not be linear using his ecologic data unless age, pack-year rate -
smoking intensity, smoking duration, etc. are considered, which is
impossible using ecologic data. So if you do not include these
factors as he does not, he is not testing the LNT. When he states
the LNT fails, I consider it more a failure of his study design to
accommodate the non linear dependencies of pack year rate, smoking
duration, etc.
John, again, my goal is not to convince
anyone, but to state why I personally have questions with his ecologic
analyses. I do think this type of study design to test the LNT is fatally
flawed. I do think more work is needed that will either verify the
validity for certain types of radiation or disprove the validity of the
LNT, however I do not think the examination should take the form of an
ecologic study.
Bill
----- Original Message -----
From: AndrewsJP@aol.com
To: bill-field@uiowa.edu ; jjcohen@prodigy.net
Cc: radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu
Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2002 6:59 PM
Subject: Re: Radon's linear dependency
In a message dated 2/16/2002 3:17:07 PM Eastern Standard Time, bill-field@uiowa.edu writes:
But,
Bernie says he is testing the LNT theory, not an hypothesis, right?
Just so I am clear, what do you think is the proof that it does not?
Maybe, I am missing your point.
Bill
Bernie says he is testing the LNT theory, when he means that the theory is "a hypothesis assumed for the sake of arguement or investigation or an unproved assumption" (from my New Collegiate Dictionary). What I believe we should be arguing is that the LNT theory is not in fact a theory meaning "a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena" (ibid). I do not see a phenomena that needs explaining. What I see is a conservative assumption that is having huge and expensive impact on the body politic and on the urgent need for safe electricity for the world that has minimal environmental impact. The assumption of the linear no-threshold theory is really a hypothesis, not a proven theory yet. It may be a long time before we know enough to prove this as theory. The LNT hypothesis is according to my dictionary: "a : an assumption tor concession made for the sake of arguement or b :! an interpretation of a practical situation or condition taken as the ground for action." This to me seems to be the case for LNT, and until we can show definitely that there are predictable excess cancers or other effects that actually reduce mortality, the LNT remains a hypothesis, not a theory.
John Andrews
Knoxville, Tennessee
************************************************************************
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/