Re: Radon, smoking and LNT

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

On Thu, 26 Jun 2003, John Jacobus wrote:

> If you use data that may not represent the situation,

> then how can you draw a conclusion that proves or

> disproves a hypothesis?  Dr. Cohen is a physicist.  He

> has presented data and a conclusion.  Epidemiologists

> have reviewed the inforamtion and questioned the

> validity of the data.  This is what epidemiologist do.



	--To the best of my knowledge, Dr. Field is the only

epidemiologist who has questioned my data. There have been no publications

contesting it. The NCRP Committee asked me no questions that would

indicate that they question it.

	My lung cancer data are from National Center for Health

Statistics. If those data are no good, why are they collected? They are

very widely used.

	My radon data are from three independent sources, our

measurements, EPA measurements, and measurements sponsored by various

states. Correlations among these three sources is very good, and if any

one of the three is used alone, the results of my study are the same. For

more details, see Sec. D of item #1 on my web site, and references given

there. I can provide more references on request.

	My data on smoking prevalence are derived from three independent

sources -- a Bureau of Census survey, cigarette sales tax collections, and

lung cancer rates for counties of similar radon levels, All give the same

results --see Sec. G of item #7 on my web site. It is also shown there

that no remotely plausible errors in my values will resolve the

discrepancy with predictions of LNT.

	The issue of measuring radon now to explain lung cancers

presumably due to radon exposures many years ago is present also in

essentially all case-control studies. I have given reasons why it is less

important in my studies than in case-control stusies.

	Note that for any of the uncertainties in these data to affect my

results, they would have to be very highly correlated with radon levels.

Plausibility of correlations is one of the most important techniques I

use, but my critics pay no attention to that. My very extensive studies

have shown that nothing except urban-rural differences correlate strongly

with radon, and these have been very thoroughly studied -- they are not

nearly strong enough to matter.



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

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/