[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Cohen's Ecologic Studies
I agree. Hormesis has a great deal of data to it's credit. We evolved in various levels of radioactive backgrounds over millions of years.If it were as harmful as some would have us think , the human race would have petered out long ago. There are areas which contrast one another by powers of 10 as far as naturally occuring background in which people have lived for eons and there doesn't appear to be any marked difference in their evolutionary progress. From what I gather, hormesis knocks off the 'apex'cells before they reach the point of being a burden for the system to support and new, healthy, productive cells are then produced sooner to replace them. Sounds like a no-brainer to me.
Floyd W.Flanigan B.S.Nuc.H.P.
-----Original Message-----
From: Jack_Earley@RL.GOV [mailto:Jack_Earley@RL.GOV]
Sent: Monday, June 03, 2002 1:44 PM
To: mcaceci@radal.com; radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu
Subject: RE: Cohen's Ecologic Studies
<<It used to be that only original, experimental, scientific results (as
opposed to ideas and (re)calculations) were accepted for publication on
respected scientific journals.>>
A May 31 article in the Tri-City Herald stated that "gadfly scientist Norm
Buske's research on thorium and europium in the Hanford Reach is too flawed
to be valid." In a letter to the Government Accountability Project, a
Hanford watchdog organization, Patrick Sabotta, head of the Nez Perce
tribe's environmental restoration program, wrote that "Buske's research
appeared biased, did not follow universally accepted scientific procedures,
contained little or no information on his methodologies, was unfocused, did
not use an independent lab to analyze water samples, and did not back up its
conclusions on paper. If we want to hold (the Department of Energy) and its
contractors to these high standards, then other organizations conducting
studies at Hanford should also abide by the same standards."
Jack Earley
Radiological Engineer
-----Original Message-----
From: Marco Caceci [mailto:mcaceci@radal.com]
Sent: Sunday, June 02, 2002 4:02 PM
To: radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu
Subject: RE: Cohen's Ecologic Studies
I thought that that was the point: if you assume LNT (or just use, as
stated, "the false premise of linearity") you discover that hormesis exists.
I consider the abstract below loaded with innuendo and meant to be
unintelligible, but this is how I read it:
- you cannot plot cancers against dose(rate): that is assuming linearity
- hence your conclusions are wrong
the logic sounds funny to me, and particularly so if the argument is (as it
will be) used to defend the LNT model which is linear (but leans the wrong
way).
I have no problem in admitting my ignorance of much statistics, also I have
not read the paper, but I have seen enough data to accept linearity at low
doses (and argue for that: heard of Taylor's expansion?) and to accept that
hormesis is there.
You cannot contraddict the facts (or can you?), and the facts are that
higher environmental dose rates are (ecologically, statistically, whatever)
associated with lower (lung) cancer rates.
It used to be that only original, experimental, scientific results (as
opposed to ideas and (re)calculations) were accepted for publication on
respected scientific journals.
Enough said, please don't flame me, I do not particularly wish to restart a
thread I was glad to see closed, but I just must take sides sometimes when
dogma fights evidence.
My respect is all for Professor Cohen, his results will always carry quite
well, IMHO, the burden of their ecological fallacy.
Marco
----
Radiol. Prot. 22 (June 2002) 141-148
The potential for bias in Cohen's ecological analysis of
lung cancer and residential radon
Jay H Lubin
.... (NIH!?!?!?)
Although several authors have demonstrated that risk
patterns in ecological analyses provide no inferential
value for assessment of risk to individuals, Cohen
advances two arguments ... who suggest
!!!
Cohen's results are and will always be burdened by the
ecological fallacy.
!!!
....
Average dose determines
average risk only for models which are linear in all
covariates, in which case ecological analyses are valid.
However, lung cancer risk and radon exposure, while
linear in the relative risk, are not linearly related to
the scale of absolute risk,
!!!!
and thus Cohen's rejection
of the LNT model is based on a false premise of
linearity.
!!!!
....
************************************************************************
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/
******************** DISCLAIMER ********************
The information transmitted is intended only for the person
or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential
and/or privileged material. If you are not the intended recipient
of this message you are hereby notified that any use, review,
retransmission, dissemination, distribution, reproduction or any
action taken in reliance upon this message is prohibited. If you
received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the
material from any computer. Any views expressed in this message
are those of the individual sender and may not necessarily reflect
the views of the company.
***************************************************
************************************************************************
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/