Re: Dukelows LNT comments

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

On Tue, 17 Jun 2003, Gary Howard wrote:

>

> I have always found Dr. Field's posts logical and scientifically

> based.

>

> Cohen begs others to explain his findings



	--I ask them for explanations in terms of a concrete

hypothetical example that I can analyze.



> Others explain to him likely reasons for his findings



	--Where concrete hypothetical examples have been suggested, I have

analyzed them and shown them to be highly implausible. I have published

papers on these analyses, reviewed in Sections 4.3, 4.4, and 5.2 of item

#7 on my web site, for example



> Cohen rejects ALL others explanations



	--I can't analyze explanations not accompanied by a concrete

hypothetical example because only with such examples can I do analyses and

investigate plausibility. My papers have lots of possible explanations,

but they all fail in the test of plausibility



 > Cohen says I have always included in my offers an outside reviewer

> Cohen tells Field none of his suggested reviewers are acceptable

> even though they include a former co-author of Cohen.



	--They have never included Colditz, the former co-author he

referred to. I did accept a former co-author of Field and we agreed on

him, but I sent him my paper and he has never responded



> The requested review ends because of Cohen's failure to agree to a

> named reviewer.



	--I will agree on any theoretical physicist. The problem is that

my work is a new and novel approach to a scientific problem and

theoretical physicists are accustomed to evaluating new and novel

approaches. I originally thought that any scientist could do such an

evaluation, but my experiences with Field, Mossman, and a few others has

made me realize that this is not so. They are bound by standard techniques

developed for determining dose-response relationships, and don't seem to

understand that my work is not designed to determine a dose-response

relationship.

>

> I think this loop can end if Cohen would stop asking others to explain

> his findings since he never accepts explanations and the reviewer is

> up to his choosing.



	--I will accept any explanation given in terms of a concrete

hypothetical example. Only that can I analyze. That is all that I have

asked for. I can only recall three times when I have asked for

explanations, other than in responses to other messages. Field has offered

his suggestions dozens of times without me instigating the discussion.



 Eventhough he asked the NCRP to review his work,

> he now says the NCRP is biased without ever seeing what they state.

> Why ask them to review it in the first place??



	--I did not say NCRP is biased. If NCRP shows that they understand

what I have done and shows what might be wrong with it, I will give it

every consideration. At this point, I am worried that they have never

contacted me to discuss criticisms of my work; in my experience,

scientific evaluations require substantial back-and-forth discussion.



> It is Dr. Cohen who states the LNT fails in his ecological studies and

> therefore is invalid, while at the same time ignoring the case-control

> epidemiology studies that suggest otherwise.



	--Case-control studies do not support LNT in the low dose region,

and I recognize no discrepancy between my work and case-control studies



   He on the other hand

> says the ecological studies can not quantify risk or provide a dose

> response.>

> Wher is the logic.

>

	--If you will read item #7 on my web site you will understand the

logic. I don't see how you can question my logic if you don't understand

the things stated there.



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

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/