Re: The Great Debate Could be Over!

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

On Wed, 11 Jun 2003, Gary Howard wrote:



> Dr. Cohen for some reason has ignored my simple question I posed to

> both you and him.  Dr. Cohen - If you want a theoretical physicist,

> why not accept the opinion of the NCRP Review Committee which includes

> very qualified members (including a physicist) who are being

> compensated to review your work?



	--My apologies for not responding to your question; I

remembered reading it at a very busy time, and when I had time to

respond, I could not find it in my e-mail. I was hoping you would send

it again.

	The NCRP Committee is dominated by Epidemiologists, and, some

Epidemiologists have great difficulty in understanding my work.

Epidemiology is designed to determine a dose-response relationship, and I

have always recognized that this cannot be done using ecological data. My

work is designed to test LNT; I have never claimed that it determines the

dose-response relationship. Trying to do so, falls into the trap of "the

cological fallacy". My logic is as follows:



	The ecological fallacy is avoided for the special case of a

linear-no threshold dose-response relationship (LNT); this is familiar

from the fact that, with LNT, "man-rem" determines the number of deaths.

Thus, there are two logical options:

	--- Option (1): LNT is valid, in which case a plot of lung cancer

rates (corrected for smoking prevalence) vs radon exposure would show a

strong positive slope. This is no different from "man-rem" determining the

number of deaths

	--- Option (2): LNT is not valid



My finding is that Option (1) is not fulfilled. The logical conclusion is

that Option (2) is the correct one - LNT is not valid. That is all that I

claim and all that I have ever claimed. In particular, I have never

claimed to have shown that the dose-response relationship has a negative

slope.



	Before accepting that finding, one must consider confounding

factors, and that is essentially what my work has been all about for the

past 10 years. That work is summarized in item #7 on my web site. If the

NCRP Committee finds fault with that work, I will accept its decision.

What worries me is that the NCRP Committee, which is dominated by

Epidemiologists, may ignore that work and simply complain that my

methods are not those used by Epidemiologists.



> I can not understand why Dr. Cohen would ask in the first place for a

> theoretical physicsist to resolve the question.  That is like asking

> an epidemiologist to resolve some disagreement about Quark theory.



	--Theoretical physicists are accustomed to dealing with different

approaches to investigating scientific questions, including those never

before used. My work falls into that category. Epidemiologists are

accustomed to using well standardized approaches designed to determine

dose-response relationships, and my work does not fall into that category.

My work is in the realm of science, investigating a scientific question

(validity of LNT). That is what theoretical physicists do. That is what my

experience has prepared me to do.





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

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/