[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Dukelows LNT comments
Gary Howard,
Thank you, but it's Mr. Dukelow (or Jim Dukelow) to you and to everybody else.
A couple of comments.
Cohen's use of the counties data to test the linear no-threshold hypothesis is consistent with statistical hypothesis testing in general and with reigning paradigm of the scientific method, developed by Karl Popper. The paradigm holds that a theory or hypothesis is only considered to be a scientific theory if it is falsifiable -- that is, if it is possible to devise an experiment or collect a data set that is capable of contradicting the predictions of the theory. That is exactly what Cohen has done with the counties data. Precisely because the linear no-threshold hypothesis posits a LINEAR relationship between aggregate exposure and health consequences, an ecological data set is adequate to test the theory, if concerns about confounding and dependencies between various variables can be adequately treated. I tend to believe that Cohen has done that, although I continue to try to keep up with the anti-Cohen cottage industry.
Regarding epidemiology and epidemiologists. I think the practice of epidemiology has some serious problems. My initial concerns were mostly related to the abuse of data dredging -- running perhaps 400 tests of hypothesis on a large data set and then being SHOCKED, SHOCKED to discover 10 statistically significant positive results (at the 5% significance level), when the expected number of spurious positive results from random variation alone in the samples is 20. What is even more striking is that some prominent epidemiologists (Rothman, in particular) defend the practice with an argument equivalent to a prosecutor telling a jury that they shouldn't worry about proof beyond a reasonable doubt, since if the defendant were not guilty as sin, we wouldn't be prosecuting him.
You might find interesting an extended debate on the practice of epidemiology between Alvan Feinstein and about a half-dozen "establishment" epidemiologists. References are:
Feinstein, Scientific standards in epidemiologic studies of the menace of daily life, Science, 1988, v. 242, pp. 1257-63
Savitz et al., Scientific Standards of Criticism: A Reaction to "Scientific standards in epidemiologic studies of the menace of daily life," by A.R. Feinstein, Epidemiology, 1990, v. 1, no. 1, pp. 78-83.
Vandenbroucke, How Trustworthy is Epidemiologic Research?, Epidemiology, 1990, v. 1, no. 1, pp. 83-84.
Weiss, Scientific Standards in Epidemiologic Studies, Epidemiology, 1990, v. 1, no. 1, pp. 85-86.
Feinstein, Scientific News and Epidemiologic Editorials, Epidemiology, 1990, v. 1, no. 2, pp. 170-180.
Savitz and Kelsey, Response to Feinstein, Epidemiology, v. 2, no. 1, pp. 61-63.
Greenland, Science versus Advocacy: The Challenge of Dr Feinstein, Epidemiology, 1991, v. 2, no. 1, pp. 64-72.
Feinstein, Reprise and Lyrics for Another Chorus, Epidemiology, 1991, v. 2, no. 1, pp. 72-76.
Also interesting is Rothman's paper:
Rothman, No Adjustments are Needed for Multiple Comparisons, Epidemiology, 1990, v. 1, no. 1, pp. 43-46.
As lawyers would say, in Latin, of course, The Thing Speaks for Itself.
Best regards.
Jim Dukelow
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
Richland, WA
jim.dukelow@pnl.gov
These comments are mine and have not been reviewed and/or approved by my management or by the U.S. Department of Energy.
-----Original Message-----
From: Gary Howard [mailto:radiation@webmail.co.za]
Sent: Mon 6/16/2003 3:11 PM
To: radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu
Cc:
Subject: Dukelows LNT comments
Dr. Dukelow,
It took me a long time to understand Dr. Cohen is not saying his
findings indicate radon dose not pose a risk. Most others I know
think that is what he is saying. While not logical to me, he is only
saying he is testing if the LNT is valid.
I have always found Dr. Field's posts logical and scientifically
based.
Cohen begs others to explain his findings
Others explain to him likely reasons for his findings
Cohen rejects ALL others explanations
Cohen says I have always included in my offers an outside reviewer
Cohen tells Field none of his suggested reviewers are acceptable
eventhough they include a former co-author of Cohen
The requested review ends because of Cohen's failure to agree to a
named reviewer.
Where's the logic?
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. 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??
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. He on the other hand
says the ecological studies can not quantify risk or provide a dose
response.
Wher is the logic.
Mossman (a LNT opponent) is correct. The debate is over.
Nevertheless, Dr. Dukelow apparently sees a need to stereotype all
Epidemiologist as not logical as per your Rothman reference.
Is attacking the epidemiology profession now the only defense that is
left for Dr. Cohen's ecologic epidemiology studies?
************************************************************************
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/