[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Award offer



Jerry,



You wrote: "to buy his conclusions you have to accept the notion that radon 

levels somehow affect smoking habits"



----------------------

People who smoke are generally lower in socioeconomic status (SES).  The SES 

surely can affect radon levels.  



Perhaps:



People who smoke (lower SES) can not afford air conditioning (or lower it 

usage) so leave windows open more.



etc., etc. 



Bill Field

bill-field@uiowa.edu

> Wes, et al,

>     To me, your assessment of Puskin's paper seems too kind. Puskin's "analysis" 

> appears to be little more than a slick attempt to obfuscate its fundamental lack 

> of logic.

>     When you cut through all the crap, to buy his conclusions you have to accept 

> the notion that  radon levels somehow affect smoking habits. I have a bridge I'd 

> like to sell to anyone who finds that  plausible.     Jerry

> 

> 

> 

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

>   From: Wesley 

>   To: epirad@mchsi.com ; 'Carl Miller' ; 'radsafe' 

>   Cc: 'BERNARD L COHEN' ; Wesley R. Van Pelt 

>   Sent: Sunday, April 27, 2003 7:26 AM

>   Subject: RE: Award offer

> 

> 

>   To Bill Field and Radsafe,

> 

> 

> 

>   Dr. Puskin has contributed an interesting and valuable paper addressing 

> "Cohen's discrepancy," i.e., Cohen's negative county level association between 

> radon and lung cancer. Puskin shows that respiratory system cancers correlate 

> negatively with radon, but other cancers do not. He then assumes that this is 

> due to smoking (i.e., the smoke causes respiratory system cancers but not other 

> cancers). He then implies that, for some reason, radon is higher in counties 

> where smoking is lower. He offers no data demonstrating why this would be so.

> 

> 

> 

>   I can think of no reason why radon would be robustly and consistently higher 

> in counties where smoking is lower. To me, this is an implausible association.

> 

> 

> 

>   Bill Field's implication that Dr. Puskin has explained Dr. Cohen's discrepancy 

> and deserves the award is premature.

> 

> 

> 

>   Best regards,

> 

>   Wes

> 

>   Wesley R. Van Pelt, PhD, CIH, CHP

> 

>   Wesley R. Van Pelt Associates, Inc.

> 

>   http://home.att.net/~wesvanpelt/Radiation.html 

> 

>   wesvanpelt@att.net 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

>   > Carl,

> 

>   > 

> 

>   > Since Dr. Puskin is a federal employee, he likely can not accept a reward

> 

>   > offer.  However, a donation to the American Cancer Society could be made

> 

>   > in

> 

>   > his name.

> 

>   > 

> 

>   > Regards, Bill Field

> 

>   > epirad@mchsi.com

> 

> 

> 

> 

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

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/