Re: Radon Debate

[epirad@mchsi.com]

Greg,



Thank-you for your observations. You are correct, Dr. 

Cohen and I do not exchange gift lists for holidays.  

However, I would not be against exchanging gift ideas.  

I am sure he could recommend a very good book on quark 

theory.



As per your request, I would be happy to send a copy of 

the paper out to anyone interested. It clearly shows how 

epidemiology studies can yield negative associations 

between radon exposure and lung cancer using basement 

measurements, while more accurate exposure 

reconstruction techniques yield positive risk 

estimates.  Please email me at my University email: 

mailto:bill-field@uiowa.edu



Good day to you mate.  



Bill Field

Community of Science: http://myprofile.cos.com/Fieldrw

> 

> Drs. Cohen and Field,

> 

> I want to thank you both for taking the time to post your "debate" messages to 

> Radsafe.  I have tried to understand the nuances of each of your posts. However, 

> my work experience is in theoretical Physics.  I can imagine what it would be 

> like to post messages concerning chiral quark theory to an epidemiology list.  I 

> think some of this cross-level bias dialogue is approaching that level of 

> discussion.   But then again, I imagine quark theory is not a heated topic of 

> debate among epidemiologists?  I am sure it would be unintelligible to most if 

> not all epidemiologist.  I think Dr. Cohen has done a very nice job of 

> performing a massive ecologic study looking at radon and lung cancer in the 

> United States.  Dr. Cohen, I would like to know why your radon data is also 

> inversely related to other smoking related cancers.  The only explanantion I can 

> think of for this is that it is due in some way for not accounting for smoking > adequately or that there is some beneficial effect of alpha expoure to the lung.  

> Although I can not imagine a mechanism.  Dr. Cohen, don't you think your 

> findings require that case-control studies follow up the hypothesis you 

> generated?  Other than the Iowa Study is there anymore ongoing case-control 

> studies looking at radon in the U.S.?   

> 

> The only place where I hear so much pro hormesis talk is on this list.  I fear 

> the choir is really influencing the choir.  I congratulate Radiation Science and 

> Health (Drs. Rockwell, Seiler, and others) for a large part of the pro hormesis 

> bias of this list. Dr. Muckerheide's repeated post appear to be working. I find 

> many of his posts interesting, while some others really unbelievable.  However, 

> I am really surprised how fast so many list members are to criticize some of the 

> excellent work performed by the NCRP, ICRP, NCI (Boice, Lubin and others), etc.  

> I think Dr. Boice has won quite a few awards in his time including awards from 

> the HPS.     

> 

> Dr. Field,  it seems to me that epidemiology is approaching its limits when your 

> looking at the health risk of home radon exposure.  Especially, if one does not 

> use precise data from people directly.  I applaud your efforts to improve 

> retrospective home radon exposure and I find Dr Steck’s and Fleisher’s work on 

> glass based radon detectors for retrospective radon exposure quite intriguing.  

> I would hope that the reason you spend so much time on dose assessment issues is 

> your past work in Health Physics?  You aparently must have worked in QA/QC and 

> dose assessment issues? It is reassuring to see that you can work closely and be 

> in agreement with at least some nuclear physicist like Dr. Steck and Dr. 

> Fleisher.  I would hope our list would provide thoughtful suggestions for 

> improving future epidemiology studies rather than just criticizing all studies 

> that do not promote hormesis.  

> 

> Dr. Fields, I can understand why you continue your debate with Dr. Cohen when he > states he has answered all of your questions and keeps offering his reward for 

> someone to explain his findings.  It is apparent you feel he has not responded 

> directly to your posts.  I think you are very brave in deed to post to this 

> list, but I do not think you will ever end your debate with him given our finite 

> lifetimes.  But, this is what makes life interesting and gets people thinking on 

> a different level.  I surely have learned a lot of epidemiology from you and for 

> that I thank you. I also thank both you and Dr. Cohen for your high level of 

> communication and respect even though others have lowered themselves to 

> simplistic and mean spirited posts to both of you.  I can imagine that you both 

> do not exchange holiday gift lists.  Alternatively,  I would guess not many 

> people on this list have the courage to post to epidemiology related lists?  

> 

> As far as I can tell, the Iowa group and Dr. Lubin are the really the only 

> people who have downloaded and taken the time to look at Dr. Cohen's data.  I > applaud them for taking the time to look at the data, as Dr. Cohen has 

> repeatedly requested, and not just condemn it site unseen.  I think the least 

> the rest of us can do is read the papers already published by them prior to 

> flaming them.  They have put in far more work on this issue than any of us. 

> 

>  Dr. Field -  I recently read this news item on yahoo.  Can you tell me how to 

> get a copy of the paper?

> 

> http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/hsn/20020608/hl_hsn/study__radon_

> risk_in_homes_underestimated

> 

>  Good Day Mates!       Greg Johnstone 

> 

>  

> 

> 

> 

> ---------------------------------

> Do You Yahoo!?

> Sign-up for Video Highlights of 2002 FIFA World Cup

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

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/