Re: Cohen's Observation

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

On Fri, 20 Jun 2003 epirad@mchsi.com wrote:



> 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.



	--Item #7 on my web site was intended to treat confounding

factors; it did not include justifying my radon data. It justifies my

smoking data in Sec. 4.2, and goes on to show that no remotely plausible

smoking data can solve the problem; what in that demonstration do you

question? I responded to your claim that my smoking data does not explain

lung cancer rates in a message sent a few minutes ago.

      My radon data are justified in Sec. D of my 1995 paper, item #1

on my web site, and much more detail is given in earlier papers.



>  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.



	-- Any criticisms they offer that can be translated into concrete

 hypothetical examples will be given every consideration -- that is true

of any criticisms you or anyone else makes. My worries about the NCRP

Committee is that they do not seem to want back-and-forth discussion with

me. In science as I know it, a consensus is reached after back-and-forth

responses.



> 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.



	--When I started the study, I did believe in LNT. All of my

writings up to that time, including the six books I had authored, accepted

it without question. Only when I came to believe my data did I look at the

issue more broadly. Nevertheless, I have spent many years trying to

reconcile my findings with LNT.



>  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.



	--If it is a blunt instrument, why can't you make up a concrete

hypothetical example of how that bluntness can explain my results?



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

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/