Re: Radon and Smoking (individual vs aggregate)

[BERNARD L COHEN <blc+@PITT.EDU>]

  	--I don't understand what you are saying, and you raise so many

points that it would take a lot of time to address each one, and I am very

short of time. If you could point to something you object to in any of my

papers, I will respond. Better yet, send a letter to the Editor and that

would justify the time it would take me to respond.

	If you don't think I used the BEIR-IV formula, or if you don't

agree with my mathematical development of it to do what I did, please

specify very specifically what your objections are. Most of your

criticisms are too general. Be very specific.



Bernard L. Cohen

Physics Dept.

University of Pittsburgh

Pittsburgh, PA 15260

Tel: (412)624-9245

Fax: (412)624-9163

e-mail: blc@pitt.edu





On Wed, 20 Feb 2002, R. William Field wrote:



> Field wrote: I addressed a very specific problem below with your study.  You

> state that a

>  basic theory takes into account, "the most important things."   I consider

> smoking intensity and duration two of the most important parameters to

> consider in validating your derived LNT formula.

>

> Dr. Cohen wrote: I am testing the BEIR formulas, and they do not include

> these

> things

>

> Field response:

>

> Dr. Cohen, the BEIR formulas DO indeed include "these things".  As we

> explained many years ago, HPJ 75(1), July 1998, page 13.    The BEIR model

> is quite general and allows for any degree of control for smoking.  You can

> include factors such as pack-year rate and duration of smoking in addition

> to even non linear effects of smoking.  As was pointed out in BEIR IV, "The

> choice of an appropriate age specific background rate for this calculation

> involves proper treatment of smoking, sex, and calendar time."

>

> Your previous response was that you "crudely" treat pack-year rate.  But

> your crude treatment is  after the cross-level bias already occurred.  My

> point which you have ignored for years is that you have not derived an

> equivalent BEIR model.  You can not assume smoking intensity and duration,

> are not important factors to include in your LNT derived formula.  Then

> latter try to treat the problem of smoking intensity and duration by using

> aggregate data.  You are not really testing the LNT using your formula.

> Your findings do not convince me the LNT fails, I am only convinced that

> your formula is not robust enough to test the LNT.  It is not surprising, as

> Dr. Gilbert pointed out, that that your results are confounded by smoking,

> because other smoking  related cancers are also negatively associated with

> your county radon data.

>

> Bill Field

>

>

>



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

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/