Re: Cohen refutation of LNT

[hflong@postoffice.pacbell.net]

Dear Tom,

Professor Cohen's work is very impressive to this epidemiologist and to other

scientists who have repeatedly questioned it at meetings of Doctors for

Disaster Preparedness.

Only Professor Cohen was honored by modreator Art Robinson (Linus Pauling's

co-investigator) with the ultimate compliment, "He diligently tried to prove

his hypothesis wrong"



Now with radioactivity dispersion ("dirty bomb") a realistic threat, HPs

should reassure that animal, atom bomb and ecologic studies indicate more

likelihood of benefit than harm from small amounts of radiation. Cancer fears

should be quelled by science, with only 27 breast cancers where 34 were

expected with 1- 10 rad at hiroshima and Nagasaki.



I am satisfied with the very short and consistent error bars of non-smokers

and smokers, independently, showing less lung cancer mortality in counties

having 1-4 pCi/L living area radon samplings than at <1 pCi/L, especially

since the variation in radon exposure was more than the variation in smoking

rates. Field's Iowa study and Wang's Chinese cave-dweller study were of

populations with controls having higher exposure, and could also reflect risk

for those levels, although European studies reported at Rhodes recently by

Becker suggest benefit to 500 Bq/ m3 (about 12 pCi/L).



To apply to individuals, (although sufficient to refute LNT), we need a

placebo study of a <0.5 pCi/L (deficient?) population, with supplement (from

uranium ore in house?) to monitored levels of about 3 pCi/L (and perhaps about

10 pCi/L), for certain exclusion of selection. Ask your epidemiologist friends

about that.



Howard Long



Thomas Jones wrote:



> Dr. Cohen,

>

> I think you have been caught.  I find it hard to believe you forgot

> about a letter you responded to yourself.  Surley, you knew your

> inverse findings are also seen for other smoking related cancers and

> your acknowlwdged ignorance on the subject is very telling.  The

> scientific method dictates (if you assume your study is actually

> valid) that you explain why other smoking related cancers also have

> an inverse coorelation.  I have spoken to numerous epidemiologists

> and they think Dr. Field's assertion that your findings are due to

> residual confounding from smoking (and co-correlated inter county

> factors) are very valid. Especailly since the inverse assocaition

> occurs for other smoking related cancers.  If the inverse association

> was due to radon, it would not be seeen for other cancers not

> associated with radon.

>

> Obviously, the points raised by Dr. Field are valid and you continue

> to use smoke and mirrors to allude them.  You never responded

> directly to most of his posting and in fact never directly responded

> to Field's rejoinder or his last letter to the editor published in

> the Health Physics Journal.  You could respond point by point on this

> forum.   Your continuing insistance that all criticisms have been

> answered is ridiculous.

>

> Now, I promise - this is my last post.

>

> Thomas Jones

>

> Sent by Law  Mail

> ************************************************************************

> 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/