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

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

On Sat, 21 Jun 2003 epirad@mchsi.com wrote:



> Unlike ecologic studies, case-control studies are subject to much less cross-

> level bias.



	--Can you say what you mean by "cross-level bias", hopefully with

a concrete hypothetical example? That term has been used in various ways.

I remember responding to "the cross level bias" issue several years ago,

but don't remember the details.



>  The fact remains that the few short-term screening radon

> measurements you use per county, do a very poor job



	--I was also very much surprised by this but after years of being

faced with evidence, I slowly became convinced. The principal evidence was

strong correlations between my data and data sets obtained by EPA and by

various studies sponsored by individual states. This matter is reviewed in

Sec. D of Item #1 on my web site,   www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc   See also

references cited there.

	The issue of short term measurements was addressed in my paper in

Health Physics 54:195ff;1988



> radon measurements you use per county, do a very poor job  assessing exposure

> for the people who developed lung cancer within those counties.



	--In LNT, it need not be specific to those who developed lung

cancer. All that matters is the total exposure to the entire population.



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

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/