Re: Epi studies

[BERNARD L COHEN <blc+@PITT.EDU>]

On Wed, 7 May 2003, Carl Miller wrote:



>  It is clear Dr. Cohen assumes the risk to an individual in a county is

 equivalent to a few short term radon test in a county.



	--Not so. Where do I say that?



>  That is why he says

 he is testing the LNT rather than estimating risk to an individual.



	--Wrong. Using my data to estimate risk to an individual is an

example of "the ecological fallacy". Using it to test LNT avoids the

ecological fallacy.



> He has

 stated in his papers that his ecologic studies can not assess risk to an

 individual - so what use are they?



	--They provide a test of the linear-no threshold theory. That

theory is costing our country hundreds of billions of dollars, so it is

important for it to be tested.



>  Plot the average radon concentrations for

 each of his counties and his mortality rates for each county.  The spread of

 the points is huge.  One could place a positive line, negative line, etc.

 easily within the data point spread.



	--The slope of the line is negative by 15 standard deviations, and

differs from the prediction of LNT by 30 standard deviations. If you

understand what that means, I can't imagine you making such a statement.



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

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/