Re: Re: Re: Mossman paper in Health Physics News - The Debate is Over

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

Dr. Cohen,



I have read these papers several times and have yet found where you

address how you treat inter county variability.  Nor do I see in the

paper you reference any reference to Dr. Smith and Field's papers and

specific concerns brought up by them previously.



We all have other committments and deadlines and are not retired so we

have our regular duties to perform.  You appear to expect people to

take time out of their regular job to provide explanations for you to

rule against regarding your inverse findings.  Rather than offering

rewards perhaps you could hire an eidemiologist or statistician?



Your latest modification of an outside reviewer now being limited to a

theoretical phsyicist (TP) defies logic. Please provide even 4 TPs

with experience in ecologic studies.  You make offers then modify them

to the degree that no one could possibly meet the requirements for

them.





Gary



On Thu, 19 Jun 2003 09:20:31 -0400 (EDT) BERNARD L COHEN

(blc+@pitt.edu) wrote:



>	I have great difficulty coping with this type of controversy and

>pot shots, especially at a time when I am under pressure to meet some

>deadlines for submitting promised manuscripts and preparing

presentations

>at upcoming meetings.

>	All I ask is that people who criticize my study read and try to

>understand item #7 on my web site (it is a tightly reasoned

>summary justification for my procedures), suggest where its logic is

>faulty using a specific concrete hypothetical example, and give me a

>chance to analyze their suggestion. Is that asking too much? I would

have

>the highest respect for any criticisms based on that process. Since

my

>study is a new and novel approach to a scientific problem, testing

LNT,

>I believe it deserves that treatment, followed on all new and novel

>approaches in the community of theoretical physicists. When back and

forth

>discussion is completed, members of the scientific community can make

>their own judgments.

>	I see no evidence that Dr. Howard or Dr. Field have read or

>understand item #7 on my web site. They have never criticized any

part of

>its logical presentation. They have never been willing to offer a

concrete

>hypothetical example of what they criticize; to me that means they do

not

>really understand what they are claiming.

>	I should add that item #7 on my web site deals with my procedures.

>For criticisms of my data on radon, the principal justifications are

>presented in item #1 on my web site, although other aspects are

treated

>in several of my earlier papers. My publications show that I have

>considered many aspects of that problem, and judgments on my radon

data

>should consider all of the material I have discussed and not be

limited to

>pot shots at specific aspects of it.

>

>

>Bernard L. Cohen

>Physics Dept.

>University of Pittsburgh

>Pittsburgh, PA 15260

>Tel: (412)624-9245

>Fax: (412)624-9163

>e-mail: blc@pitt.edu

>web site: http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc

>

>On Tue, 17 Jun 2003, Gary Howard wrote:

>

>> Dr. Cohen,

>>

>> As a 3rd party observer, I see just the opposite at least on this

>> forum. If he ignored what you say, why is this debate going on?

Dr.

>> Field offered reviewers to end this debate and rather then

responding

>> to him, you preferred to end your conversation with him which gives

>> the impression that you really do not want an impartial review of

>> whether, as Dr. Field describes it, your poor quality smoking data

and

>> covariant information is a plausible explanation for your findings.

>>

>> Maybe, NCRP will rule on this.

>>

>> Do any list members have suggestions for an expert in ecological

>> studies to review whether or not the smoking data can explain the

>> findings (outside of Radsafe)?

>>

>> Could someone start another list for LNT/Cohen debates?

>>

>> Is there another radon specific listserv?  This is the only one I

>> found on a search of the web

>>

>> RADONPROFESSIONALS - International List of Radon Scientists & Techs

>> (112 subscribers)

>> http://list.uiowa.edu/archives/radonprofessionals.html

>>

>> Perhaps we can have a TIME OUT until we hear from the NCRP?

>>

>>  Gary Howard

>>

>>   ---------------------

>>

>> On Sat, 14 Jun 2003 14:25:59 -0400 (EDT) BERNARD L COHEN

>> (blc+@PITT.EDU) wrote:

>>

>> >	Since you ignore everything I say or do, there is no use

>> >continuing our conversation.

>> >

>> >Bernard L. Cohen

>>

______________________________________________________________________

_

>> 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/

>>

>>

>



_______________________________________________________________________

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/