[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Bogus reward offers
I beg to disagree with Carl. Dr. Cohen's challenge sought irrefutable
evidence. He has the right to explain why Puskin's papers (as he did for
Lubin's paper) don't explain Cohen's observation. Let's leave the taunting
and asperity off the list.
Tom
Carl Miller wrote:
>
> Dr. Cohen,
>
> Dr. Field is correct, he gave you the whole site address where you wrote it so it was not pulled out of context since he provided the site. This is your latest offer!
>
> http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/0201/msg00447.html
>
> You said there have been PAPERS offering specific suggestions, but I have always shown that it was very highly implausible for them to drastically change my results. These papers (Lubin, Smith, etc) would have won my reward under present ground rules just by having been accepted for publication, but that ground rule was made only a year ot two ago.
>
> Letters are usually accepted for publication - papers are not.
>
> Puskin offered a suggestion and the health Physics Journal published it.
>
> Health Phys 2003 Apr;84(4):526-32
>
> Smoking as a confounder in ecologic correlations of cancer mortality rates with average county radon levels.
>
> Puskin JS.
>
> Office of Radiation and Indoor Air, U.S. EPA, Washington, DC 20460, USA. puskin.jerome@epa.gov
>
> Cohen has reported a negative correlation between lung cancer mortality and average radon levels by county. In this paper, the correlation of U.S. county mortality rates for various types of cancers during the period 1970-1994 with Cohen's radon measurements is examined. In general, quantitatively similar, strongly negative correlations are found for cancers strongly linked to cigarette smoking, weaker negative correlations are found for cancers moderately increased by smoking, whereas no such correlation is found for cancers not linked to smoking. The results indicate that the negative trend previously reported for lung cancer can be largely accounted for by a negative correlation between smoking and radon levels across counties. Hence, the observed ecological correlation provides no substantial evidence for a protective effect of low level radon exposure.
>
> You are merely trying to put off payment with the hope everyone will forget about the matter.
>
> Doll and Darby got a letter published in a comparable journal to Health Physics.
>
> I think you have lost all credibility on these bogus offers!
>
> Carl Miller <radprot@mad.scientist.com>
>
> --
> __________________________________________________________
> Sign-up for your own FREE Personalized E-mail at Mail.com
> http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup
>
> ************************************************************************
> 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/
--
Thomas Mohaupt, M.S., CHP
University Radiation Safety Officer
104 Health Sciences Bldg
Wright State University
Dayton, Ohio 45435
tom.mohaupt@wright.edu
(937) 775-2169
(937) 775-3761 (fax)
"An investment in knowledge gains the best interest." Ben Franklin
************************************************************************
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/