Re: Radon, smoking and LNT

[John Jacobus <crispy_bird@YAHOO.COM>]

I say we allow the NCRP or an independ panel review

the data.  Hopefully, you will accept their analysis.



Have a good weekend.



--- BERNARD L COHEN <blc+@pitt.edu> wrote:

> 

> 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.

> 





=====

-- 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/