RE: The Puskin Paper on radon and smoking

[epirad@mchsi.com]

Fritz,



These exchanges can be useful to understand that ecologic studies have major 

inherent limitations and can not be used to assess the risk of radon exposure 

or test the LNT.



See also, 



Int J Epidemiol. 2001 Dec;30(6):1343-50.    



  Ecologic versus individual-level sources of bias in ecologic estimates of 

contextual health effects.



Greenland S.



Department of Epidemiology, UCLA School of Public Health, and Department of 

Statistics, UCLA College of Letters and Science, 22333 Swenson Drive, Topanga, 

CA 90290, USA.



A number of authors have attempted to defend ecologic (aggregate) studies by 

claiming that the goal of those studies is estimation of ecologic (contextual 

or group-level) effects rather than individual-level effects. Critics of these 

attempts point out that ecologic effect estimates are inevitably used as 

estimates of individual effects, despite disclaimers. A more subtle problem is 

that ecologic variation in the distribution of individual effects can bias 

ecologic estimates of contextual effects. The conditions leading to this bias 



are plausible and perhaps even common in studies of ecosocial factors and 

health outcomes because social context is not randomized across typical 

analysis units (administrative regions). By definition, ecologic data contain 

only marginal observations on the joint distribution of individually defined 

confounders and outcomes, and so identify neither contextual nor individual-

level effects. While ecologic studies can still be useful given appropriate 

caveats, their problems are better addressed by multilevel study designs, 

which obtain and use individual as well as group-level data. Nonetheless, such 

studies often share certain special problems with ecologic studies, including 

problems due to inappropriate aggregation and problems due to temporal changes 

in covariate distributions.

> Hi All,

> 

> Let's face it, from a scientific point of view Puskin's

> paper does not prove anything (Sorry, Jerry!). I find it

> also very strange that there is no reference to the paper

> of Whittemore and McMillan on the mechanism of interaction

> [Whittemore, A.S., and A. McMillan. "Lung Cancer Mortality

> among U.S. Uranium Miners: A reappraisal." J. Natl. Cancer

> Inst. 71, 489-499 (1983)].  I published a confirmation of 

> their analysis when I used their data to test my formalism

> of interaction between the effects of two toxic agents [F.

> A. Seiler,"Analysis of Health or Systemic Effects Caused by 

> Two Toxicants," Environment International,13,459-467,1987].

> How can you guys go back and forth about smoking effects in

> radon exposure and lung cancer without considering the 

> mechanism of interaction at all ?!?! So, there are at least

> two references on the mechanism in the open literature and

> THEY AGREE!  So, let's get with it!!  

> 	In addition, I find this "ring around the rosie" game

> about Jerry's paper rather silly! What no one on either side

> has stated yet, and PLEASE do so in no uncertain terms, is 

> what his data or his analysis of the data can be used for. I

> have always thought that the purpose of epidemiology was to

> provide data for a risk assessment.  So what kind of risk 

> assessment are you guys working on?  Or is this all a purely

> Academic Ivory Tower chewing of the cud?  

> 	When my kids were a lot younger, they sometimes used to

> have a fight over what the fight was all about.  I used to be

> amused about it.  But you are not little kids any more, so it

> isn't quite amusing.  Well, can somebody let me in on the big

> secret and tell me what this discussion can be used for?

> 

> Have a nice Father's Day weekend,

> 

> Fritz

> 

> PS.   One thing I do know and that is what Bernie's data

> 	are good for. Joe and I said so in:

> 	Seiler, F.A., and J.L. Alvarez, "Is the 'Ecological

> 	Fallacy' a Fallacy?" Hum. Ecol. Risk Assess., 6, 

> 	921-941, 2000. 

> 

> *****************************************************

> Fritz A. Seiler, Ph.D.

> Sigma Five Consulting:          Private:

> P.O. Box 1709                   P.O. Box 437

> Los Lunas, NM 87031             Tome', NM 87060

> Tel.:     505-866-5193          Tel. 505-866-6976

> Fax:      505-866-5197

> *****************************************************

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> ************************************************************************

> 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/

> 

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

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/