Re: Radon and Lung Cancer: What the studies really say.

[epirad@mchsi.com]

My point is that there is good consistency in the central estimate among 

studies even at 100Bq/m3 - In other words, the majority of studies do not 

provide evidence to suggest a negative association. 



Consistency of results is one of the factors along with biological plausibility 

etc. one looks for when determining causality.  

> 

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

> 

> > Unfortunately the treatment described uses the same problematic smoking data

> > that does a poor job of predicting county lung cancer rates.

> 

> 	--The smoking data I use does an excellent job of predicting

> county lung cancer rates; it implies that all lung cancer is due to

> smoking; see section on "Defense of PITT S-values" in Item #15 on my web

> site. Your statement is based on its failure to do an excellent job in

> predicting all the small random fluctuations in smoking and lung cancer

> rates; this was explained in my paper in Health Physics 72:489-490;1997

> 

> 	--I have shown that no remotely plausible smoking prevalence data

> can explain the discrepancy between my data and LNT. See Sec. 4.2 of Item

> #7 on my web site.

> 

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

> 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/