Re: Dumb questions and comments on ecological/case studies

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

On Wed, 5 Jun 2002, Ted de Castro wrote:

>

> It is also truly impressive that a small effect can be discerned let

> alone quantitized or signed in the presence of an overwhelmingly large

> confounder.



	--According to LNT, something like 10% of lung cancers are due to

radon; moreover, variations in radon levels among U.S. counties are very

much larger than variations in smoking prevalence; moreover, radon levels

are determined by geology and house construction, and neither of these is

obviously related to smoking, so correlations between radon and

smoking cannot be very large. In fact, correlations between radon and any

socioeconomic variables are not large.





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

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/