Cohen's Reward

[epirad@mchsi.com]

Wes,



In your statement below you say, "He (Puskin)then implies that, for some 

reason, radon is higher in counties where smoking is lower. 



You (Wes)go on to state - He (Puskin) offers no data demonstrating why this 

would be so.  



Puskin does not have to offer this data since it is clearly what Dr. Cohen's 

data indicates - 



We previously showed (Smith et al. 1998 - Health Physics Journal) that when 

Cohen's adjusted smoking percentages for males and females were regressed on 

radon levels, significant (p < 0.00001) negative associations between Cohen's 

average county smoking estimates and and county mean radon concentrations were 

noted for both males and females. In addition, when we (Smith et al. 1998 

Health Physics Journal) repeated the regression of lung cancer mortality rates 

on Cohen's adjusted smoking percentages, the resulting R2 values indicated 

that Cohen's smoking summary data explained very little (23.7% for females; 

34.5% for males) of the variation in lung cancer mortality rates. It is not 

surprising Cohen cannot control for these risk factors using aggregate data. 



Regarding your (Wes) statement, "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."  



As I pointed out to Jerry, smoking is strongly associated with socioeconomic 

status.  There are numerous reasons socioeconomic status can affect radon 

levels (home size - cubic feet), weather proofing, AC usage, etc. 



Regarding your (Wes) statement, "Bill Field's implication that Dr. Puskin has 

explained Dr. Cohen's discrepancy and deserves the award is premature."



Carl Miller stated that Dr. Cohen deserves the reward.  However, as Carl 

pointed out - if you read the offer from Dr. Cohen that Carl posted -    



(Dr. Cohen stated, "Now I have even dropped my option for proving that it is 

not correct -- if the suggested explanation gets ACCEPTED FOR PUBLICATION (you 

don't say where), the reward is paid whether or not I can prove that it is 

incorrect.")



This offer has two reqirements -



1) That it "provides a suggested explanantion" - Puskin's article did that.



2) That is gets "accepted for publication" - Puskin also satisfied that 

requirement.     

 

I therefore do agree with Carl Miller that the article did indeed meet the 

requirements of the reward as stated in the archives: 

http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/0201/msg00422.html



Nonetheless, my point in the previous email was that since he was a federal 

employee he likely could not accept a reward anyway, but that the money could 

be donated to the American Cancer Society in his name.



Regards, Bill 

epirad@mchsi.com





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







Wes states, > 

>  

> 

> 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/