Re: NCRP bias?

["Carl Miller" <radprot@mad.scientist.com>]

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

From: "Otto G. Raabe" <ograabe@UCDAVIS.EDU>

Date: Fri, 02 May 2003 15:32:42 -0700

To: BERNARD L COHEN <blc+@PITT.EDU>

Subject: Re: NCRP bias?

> It seems to me that all Bernie has been asking for is a plausible suggestion as to what conceivable or even far-fetched cross interaction is yielding his robust results.



Otto,



I think ecologic studies are also considered epidemiology studies. 



Also, I think it has been pointed out on this list, before that Dr. Cohen fails to consider the interaction between all the colinear factors that can work together such as smoking, education, and socioeconomic status at one time.  These factors are very inter related and Dr. Cohen looks at his potentially confounding factors in a univariate manner rather than a multivariable manner which would be required to capture the effect.  



Dr. Cohen may not think it is plausible to explain his findings just by his use of guestimated county smoking rates(which are inversely related to the radon), but what about the co-linearity between smoking, education and socioeconomic factors? Dr. Field has pointed this out before.



In addition, I think it was Drs. Lubin and Field that showed when better data was for lung cancer incidence the inverse assocaition was not found in Iowa (a s tate with high radon).  Dr. Cohen has never explained this finding in a satisfactory manner. 





-- 

__________________________________________________________

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/