RE: Radon, smoking and LNT

["Gary Isenhower" <garyi@trinityphysics.com>]

John,



I find it surprising that no one can come up with a simple concrete statement, that is 

both plausible and consistent with LNT, about what is thought to be wrong with the data.  



If I just made up numbers, THAT would be bad data, good for nothing.  But Cohens 

data, while it may not be accurate to 10 decimal places, is not just made up.  It is a 

more or less good description of radon and lung Ca.  Whatever uncertainties there are 

in the data, we ought to be able to put an upper limit on them and state plausibly why 

we are assigning those uncertainties.  Once we have done so, it should be fairly simple 

to show that it either is or is not consistent with LNT.



The repeated appeal to an unknown confounder or confounders sounds way too much 

like "we KNOW radon causes excess Ca, so your data HAS to be wrong."



-Gary Isenhower



From:           	John Jacobus <crispy_bird@YAHOO.COM>

Subject:        	RE: Radon, smoking and LNT



> Ted,

> I think that the issue is that the epidemiologist do

> not think the data is reliable, and cannot demonstrate

> anything.  Whether is proves or disproves the LNT or

> the effects of radon, etc., is secondary to the first

> issue, which is the reliability of the data.  

> 

> I think you and others are so convinced it supports

> your view that you are missing the first issue.  Bad

> data is bad date.  If the data is bad, it will hurt

> your cause.

> 

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

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/