Re: What excuse next for no pay (found this in the archives)

["Sandy Perle" <sandyfl@EARTHLINK.NET>]

This is a post: Response to Cohen's $2500 Offer, found in the 

Archives, http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/9701/msg00465.html

Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 13:42:28 -0500 (EST), quoting Bernie, Jim 

Muckerheide and Ron Kathren. Bernie's quote is from an earlier 

period, but I donb't have that actual date. 



"My offer of $1000 awards for help on the following matter did not 

prove fruitful, so I am raising the award to $2500 and will try to 

explain in more detail what I am seeking . In the February 1995 issue 

of HEALTH PHYSICS (vol.69, pp157-174), I published a paper entitled 

Test of the Linear - No Threshold (LNT) Theory of Radiation 

Carcinogenesis.....    in which I reported that lung cancer mortality 

rates for U.S. Counties, with or without correction for smoking 

prevalence, decreases rapidly (about -8% per pCi/L) as average radon 

exposure increases. This represents a very large discrepancy (20 

standard deviations!!) with the prediction of LNT theory that lung 

cancer rates should increase rapidly (about +7% per pCi/L) with 

increasing average radon exposure . My problem is in understanding 

this discrepancy. I have examined the effects of over 60 confounding 

factors, and have done many other tests, but this work has done 

little to explain our discrepancy. I have gone through the literature 

on Recological studiesS and can easily show how the results of any 

other published ecological study can be erroneous, but I cannot 

figure out how one can avoid concluding from our data that LNT theory 

fails in this low dose region where it has never been tested. What I 

need very badly is suggestions for not implausible specific potential 

explanations for our discrepancy, in at least semi-quantitative 

numerical terms, on which I can carry out calculations to determine 

if they can resolve it, or can be modified to resolve it. As a 

possible example, one might suggest that urban people smoke more 

frequently and for unrelated reasons have lower radon exposures than 

rural people, both of which are true. What I need is data for each of 

our 1601 counties on which to do calculations to see if they resolve 

our discrepancy. You can make-up the data, as long as you consider 

them to be not implausible. Since I need these made-up data for each 

of the 1601 counties, it might be most practical to give me a 

prescription for deriving these data. For example you might say that 

the radon exposure for a rural person is x% higher than for an urban 

person and an urban person is y% more likely to smoke than a rural 

person. Since I know the average radon level in each county, the 

fraction of people in each county who are urban and rural and the 

fraction that smoke, I can then determine the predicted lung cancer 

rate in each county from BEIR-IV for various values of x and y, and 

make comparisons with the data.  The only problem with this example 

is that I reported calculations based on it in Section L of my paper 

and it did very little to reduce our discrepancy. But you might not 

agree on how I did the calculation and suggest an alternative method, 

or you can suggest some alternative prescription for making up the 

data, perhaps utilizing random numbers or anything else you can think 

of that will allow me to do calculations. Or you can just present me 

with tables of numbers that you consider to be not implausible. I 

offer a $2500 award to anyone who submits a suggestion that, after a 

detailed evaluation, leads to a not-implausible explanation of our 

discrepancy. I can give up to three such awards. If the submitter and 

I do not agree on plausibility, I would be happy to accept the public 

judgement of any prominent radiation health scientist suggested by 

the submitter (letUs define prominent as 10 papers in HEALTH PHYSICS 

or equivalent journals over the past 10 years). I would hope to 

publish a paper on this with the submitter and judge as coauthors, 

but in any case, the $2500 award will be paid promptly. Of course the 

urban-rural effect discussed above was meant only as an example; any 

other ideas would be equally acceptable. Alternative suggestions for 

implementing my offer would be most welcome. I really need help on 

this problem. If anyone would like a copy of our data file, I would 

be happy to provide it." 



Bernard L. Cohen  





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

Sandy Perle

Director, Technical

ICN Worldwide Dosimetry Service

ICN Plaza, 3300 Hyland Avenue

Costa Mesa, CA 92626



Tel:(714) 545-0100 / (800) 548-5100  Extension 2306

Fax:(714) 668-3149



E-Mail: sandyfl@earthlink.net

E-Mail: sperle@icnpharm.com



Personal Website: http://sandy-travels.com/

ICN Worldwide Dosimetry Website: http://www.dosimetry.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/