Re: Epidemiology

["Jerry Cohen" <jjcohen@PRODIGY.NET>]

Bill,

In case my comments were too subtle and may have shot over you head,

I'll try to explain the points I tried to make in simpler terms:

(1) By applying the approach used in attempting to discredit Bernie Cohen's

Radon studies, one could cast doubt on any or all epidemiological studies,

including the one indicating that smoking causes cancer. In any such study

there may be factors that we are unaware of causing or influencing the

results.

(2) In criticizing such work, the detractors at least ought to offer some

plausable explanation of how or why these factors could have biased the 

results.

(3) Similarly, it would be helpful if those performing the study would

suggest a mechanism that might account for the observed results. 

Bernie did not suggest such a mechanism--other than to offer the 

obvious conclusion that any presumption of LNT is bogus.

(4) Perhaps it is presumptuous of me to do so, but I will suggest a

mechanism to account for the observed results. Maybe, just maybe, 

the  inverse correlation between radon levels and lung cancer 

incidence  is due to hormetic effect of  radiation causing an increased 

immunity to cancer. If hormesis is a valid concept (and I believe it is), 

it would  readily explain the observed negative correlation between 

radon levels and cancer incidence.     Jerry









----- Original Message -----

From: William V Lipton <liptonw@dteenergy.com>

To: Jerry Cohen <jjcohen@PRODIGY.NET>

Cc: <epirad@mchsi.com>; <radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu>

Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2002 3:52 AM

Subject: Re: Epidemiology





> You folks sure seem to have a lot of time on your hands.  Perhaps you

should

> devote it to something worthwhile, like the WWF.

>

> The opinions expressed are strictly mine.

> It's not about dose, it's about trust.

> Curies forever.

>

> Bill Lipton

> liptonw@dteenergy.com

>

> Jerry Cohen wrote:

>

> >  I was convinced that cigarette smoking causes lung cancer.

> > Now, I am not so sure.

> > I wonder if the studies on the relationship between smoking

> > and lung cancer sufficiently accounted for all possible variables such

> > as exposure to radon. Perhaps there are unknown confounders

> > out there that could have considerably biased the outcome

> > of these studies. I have seen no proof that all possible unknown

> >  confounding agents were sufficiently considered.

> > You can learn a lot on radsafe.

> >

> > ----- Original Message -----

> > From: <epirad@mchsi.com>

> > To: <radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu>

> > Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2002 11:41 AM

> > Subject: Re: Cohen's Ecologic Studies

> >

> > > Gary,

> > >

> > > I am sorry you don't understand some of my points.

> > > Perhaps I have not done a very good job, on this list

> > > and limited format, explaining my position on this

> > > issue.  However, if you sincerely want to try to

> > > understand my perspective on this issue, please read the

> > > papers on this subject we published in the Journal,

> > > Health Physics.  Please email me directly if you do not

> > > have the references.

> > >

> > > As for your question,  an excerpt from one of our papers

> > > answers your question.  Please email me directly if you

> > > do not understand the response below so that we can

> > > limit further gnawing on this topic on the list.  We

> > > have previously answered his question and even gave his

> > > question a name.

> > >

> > > The quotation below is from: Field RW, Smith BJ, Lynch

> > > CF. Cohen's Paradox. Health Physics. 77(3): 328-9, Sep

> > > 1999





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

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/