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

[epirad@mchsi.com]

Again, if I answer these questions, I will likely be accused of attacking, I 

will email you directly.



Bill Field

> 

> 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/