A respectable end to radon debate needed

["Gary Howard" <radiation@webmail.co.za>]

I originally wrote the following text-



Sirs,



I do think there needs to be a 3rd party to put their view on this

subject.



May I kindly suggest waiting to see what the NCRP says?



If they say smoking data is a problem, Field is right!



If they say the way smoking is handled did not cause the inverse

association Cohen is winner!



I am sure they will address this contentious issue.



Dr. Field, would you accept NCRP views?



Dr. Cohen, you said before that the group includes a physicist – will

you accept NCRP opinion?



Yes or no is all we need to hear, not another debate!



Truly Howard -

----



Dr. Field promptly answered yes regarding his willingness to accept

the NCRP opinion if they offered one on Dr. Cohen's smoking data

explaining the inverse association along with covariance confounding.



Dr. Field then went one step further and graciously offered numerous

well known scientists (including Dr. Colditz who co-authored

ecological studies with Dr. Cohen) to act as a referee as offered in

Dr. Cohen's post below.



----

BERNARD L COHEN <blc+@PITT.EDU>

To:  internet RADSAFE <radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu>

Subject:  My reward offers

Date:  Fri, 06 Jun 2003 10:21:45 -0400 (EDT)



There has been substantial discussion about my reward offers,

including substantial misunderstanding about them.

The only reward offer I consider still to be in force is the one

quoted

below from a 1997 message on RADSAFE:



"I offer a $2500 award to anyone who submits a suggestion that,

after a detailed evaluation, leads to a not-implausible explanation of

our discrepancy. I can give up to three such awards. If the submitter

and I do not agree on plausibility, I would be happy to accept the

public judgment of any prominent radiation health scientist suggested

by the submitter (let us define prominent as 10 papers in HEALTH

PHYSICS or equivalent journals over the past 10 years). I would hope

to publish a paper on this with the submitter and judge as coauthors"



My willingness to accept the judgment of "any prominent scientist

suggested by the submitter" was based on my 50 years of experience as

a

physicist.  I had always found that all prominent physicists would,

after due consultation with all involved parties, make the same

correct decision on the validity of a straightforward mathematical

treatment and the straightforward conclusions from it.



However, recent experience has made me realize that there are

scientists who publish good papers in their fields of specialization

but cannot understand such a straightforward mathematical treatment

and hence cannot make a reasoned decision on its validity. I therefore

modify the last part of my above offer to "...I would be happy to

accept the judgment of a prominent scientist (with no prior opinions

about my study) mutually agreed to by the submitter and myself, and

willing to publish a paper on this with the submitter and myself as

coauthors, with each of us explaining our viewpoints".



----

A few weeks ago Dr. Cohen said all his award offers are withdrawn

after payment was made to Dr. Puskin.  Now he says the one above

remains in force with a slight modification.



I thought this resolution could be solved in a scientific manner, but

Dr. Cohen has rejected all of Dr. Field's suggestion for reviewers.  I

looked over the list of reviewers Dr. Fields submitted and they

appeared to be very middle of the road reputable scientists some of

which were awarded with the Health Physics Societies highest awards.



I also asked the NCRP for a list of members on the committee reviewing

Dr. Cohen's work and was told by a secretary that Dr. Cohen did

request NCRP to review his work and who the members are.  I was told

that the review is in the final stages and the paper is now being

reviewed by NCRP council.  I found the following information about

these respected people on the WWW.



Dr. William Beckner  NCRP

Dr. Charlesd Meinhold  NCRP

Dr. David Hoel   http://biometry.musc.edu/admin/people_detail.asp?ID=9

Dr. Heath is Associate Chief of Research, Radiation Effects Research

Foundation (Hiroshima, Japan), National Academy of Sciences. He is

also Clinical Professor of Community Health, Emory University School

of Public Health. Between 1988 to 1998, he was Vice President for

Epidemiology and Surveillance Research at the American Cancer Society.

His distinguished career has included 20 years with the Centers for

Disease Control where he directed the Leukemia Section, the Viral

Diseases Branch, the Birth Defects Branch, and the Chronic Diseases

Division. Dr. Heath is one of the foremost experts on the evaluation

of cancer clusters, ionizing radiation and cancer, industrial toxins

and community health, and environmental carcinogenesis.



and Dr. Peter Bond.  http://www.bnl.gov/bnlweb/Admin/bond.html



These all appear to be very reputable scientists.  I can not imagine a

more qualified group.



I entered into this debate with the hope of resolving it so we could

go back to more technical issues.  One must really question why Dr.

Cohen will not keep his agreement as he offered in the above post

since the reviewers suggested by Dr. Field all appeared experienced

and never offered an opinion on this subject.  Unfortunately, I sadly

left with the realization that Dr. Cohen really does not appear to be

interested in a resolution for some reason, but rather a continued

debate with a review board only of his choosing.



I don’t think this is a fight between epidemiologist and physicist.

Even though, many epidemiologists have spent many hours criticizing

Dr. Cohen’s work in the peer reviewed scientific literature and on

this site. Does anyone know any Epidemiologist or Biostatistician with

at least 10 peer reviewed scientific publications in major journals

that supports Dr. Cohen’s interpretation of his findings?  Does anyone

know of any theoretical physicist with experience in performing these

ecological epidemiology studies that have offered a positive opinion

on Dr. Cohen’s studies?  I was told that Dr. Nero has offered a

negative opinion on both the EPA Radon Program and Dr. Cohen’s work.

I believe Dr. Nero is a physicist or engineer.



http://eetd.lbl.gov/Staff/NeroAV.html

http://eetd.lbl.gov/newsletter/cbs_nl/NL2/radon.html



Surely Epidemiologist or Biostatistician would understand

straightforward mathematical treatment



Perhaps Dr. Mossman is correct; the debate is over for all intent and

purposes.



_______________________________________________________________________

LOOK GOOD, FEEL GOOD - WWW.HEALTHIEST.CO.ZA



Cool Connection, Cool Price, Internet Access for R59 monthly @ WebMail

http://www.webmail.co.za/dialup/

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

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/