Re: Re: Award

[epirad@mchsi.com]

Dr. Cohen,



With all due respect, in your regard to your statement below that, "My official

offer stated that the publication was to be in Health Physics, after February 

2000."



You stated less than 1 week ago 



(http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/0304/msg00396.html) 



that the publication could be in Health Physics "or an equivalent journal"  





Lubin's article was after February 2000 and was published in an equivalent 

journal.



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

J Radiol Prot 2002 Jun;22(2):141-8   



J Radiol Prot. 2002 Sep;22(3):305-7; author reply 307-9.

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

The potential for bias in Cohen's ecological analysis of lung cancer and 

residential radon.



Lubin JH.



Biostatistics Branch, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National 

Cancer Institute, Rockville, MD 20892-7244, USA. lubinj@mail.nih.gov



Cohen's ecological analysis of US lung cancer mortality rates and mean county 

radon concentration shows decreasing mortality rates with increasing radon 

concentration (Cohen 1995 Health Phys. 68 157-74). The results prompted his 

rejection of the linear-no-threshold (LNT) model for radon and lung cancer. 

Although several authors have demonstrated that risk patterns in ecological 

analyses provide no inferential value for assessment of risk to individuals, 

Cohen advances two arguments in a recent response to Darby and Doll (2000 J. 

Radiol. Prot. 20 221-2) who suggest Cohen's results are and will always be 

burdened by the ecological fallacy. Cohen asserts that the ecological fallacy 

does not apply when testing the LNT model, for which average exposure 

determines average risk, and that the influence of confounding factors is 

obviated by the use of large numbers of stratification variables. These 

assertions are erroneous. Average dose determines average risk only for models 

which are linear in all covariates, in which case ecological analyses are 

valid. However, lung cancer risk and radon exposure, while linear in the 

relative risk, are not linearly related to the scale of absolute risk, and 

thus Cohen's rejection of the LNT model is based on a false premise of 

linearity. In addition, it is demonstrated that the deleterious association 

for radon and lung cancer observed in residential and miner studies is 

consistent with negative trends from ecological studies, of the type described 

by Cohen.

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



Cohen wrote: -- Sorry if I misunderstood your previous message. My official

> offer stated that the publication was to be in Health Physics, after

> February 2000. There were no such papers by Dr. Lubin.

> 

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

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/