Re: Radon, smoking and LNT

[John Jacobus <crispy_bird@YAHOO.COM>]

Howard, 

Knowing how biased you are, you should withdraw your

name from any consideration to review the data.  It is

only fair to ensure an unbiased review.  Don't you

agree?



By the way, your analogy is right on the money. 

Ecological epidemiology is like satellite imaging. 

You cannot see the individual trees, so you cannot see

those are that are affected by the smoke.



--- howard long <hlong@pacbell.net> wrote:

> John,

> As an epidemiologist, I DO think Cohen's data is

> reliable, when "know your

> assumption", my statistics prof's mantra, is used

> for application.

> 

> Satellite imaging may give much useful information

> about a forest, while not

> having reliable data about individual trees.

> 

> I believe some like yourself may not be seeing the

> forest for the trees.

> 

. . .



=====

-- John

John Jacobus, MS

Certified Health Physicist

e-mail:  crispy_bird@yahoo.com



__________________________________

Do you Yahoo!?

SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!

http://sbc.yahoo.com

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

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/