Re: Cohen's Observation

[epirad@mchsi.com]

Dr. Cohen,



I read #7 many times, but it fails to consider many of my previous concerns 

such as (just to name 2) the poor predictability of your smoking data to 

explain your county lung cancer rates as well as the poor predictability of 

your lung cancer mortality to to expalin the lung cancer incidence rates for 

the correct temporal time period as related to your county radon measurements.



I can not speak for Dr. Steck, but like many of us I know his teaching and 

research load is heavy and reviewing your data is not a priority for him.  I 

have tried to get numerous physicist engaged in reviewing your work, but like 

Dr. Steck have found that they show little interest.   I am happy that an NCRP 

committee has been formed, which includes a prominent physicist and Health 

Physicist, to review your work and hope that you give serious consideration to 

any findings they may make. 



>From your posts I can see that you are firm disbeliver in the LNT.  I also 

fear this may be driving your assertions that you have a validly considered 

the limitations of your study.  I also share much skepticism about the LNT, 

although I do believe if the LNT is valid it would probably be most valid for 

high LET radiation.  My argument with you is that such a blunt instrument as 

an ecologic study should not be used to test the validity of the LNT.  In 

addition, too little discussion focuses on the the type of radiation when 

people talk about the validity of the LNT. 

  

> 

> On Wed, 18 Jun 2003 epirad@mchsi.com wrote:

> 

> > Cohen wrote: I accepted the only theoretical physicist you suggested but did

> > not get a response from him. I will agree on any other theoretical physicist

> > you suggest.

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

> > I suggested numerous well respected epidemiologist.

> > Who did you accept and what question did you ask them to present an opinion 

> on?

> 

> 	--I accepted your collaborator, Dr. Steck, and asked him to

> present an opinion on Item #7 on my web site.

> 

> > Do you know any theoretical physicist that have expertise in ecologic

> > epidemiology?

> 

> 	--Any theoretical physicist has expertise in reading and

> understanding a tightly reasoned logical treatment of a new and novel

> approach to solving a scientific problem. What you call expertise in

> ecologic epidemiology is often interpreted as expertise in using ecologic

> data to determine a dose-response relationship, which I have always stated

> is impossible. I have never claimed that my study can do that.

> 	I would be glad to carefully consider your judgment if you will

> read and understand item #7 on my web site and give me a concrete

> hypothetical example of what is wrong with it. I don't believe in

> "accepting a judgment" until both sides have had ample opportunity to

> respond to one another. I solemnly promise to keep an open mind if any

> scientist is willing to engage in that process.

> 

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

> 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/