Get your tickets now - New Discussion List

[niton@mchsi.com]

Dr. Cohen,



Many people have offered suggestions to help you with your plea to explain 

your inverse associations we all see with your ecologic data.  



As Edward Teller sated, Two paradoxes are better than one; they may even 

suggest a solution. 



I believe Dr. Teller's statement is very applicable to our discussion.   



Paradox 1: Your well known inverse association between smoking and lung cancer.



Paradox 2: The less than well known inverse association between your county 

radon data and other smoking related cancers.



The existence of these two paradoxes helps to explain that the cause of these 

inverse associations are merely unbounded residual confounding from smoking 

and other within county variables associated with smoking.  I have given you 

many plausible explanations - but you can not validly test them using more 

ecologic data since the data does not treat within county variations.  



Please - before you continue to ask people for a concrete hypothetical 

explanation to explain the inverse association between radon and lung cancer, 

please provide one for the inverse association between county radon 

concentrations and other smoking related cancers. 



You statement that, "I will make an exception if a concrete hypothetical 

example of what can go wrong with my analyses is offered, but this has never 

happened before so it will probably not happen in the future"  is obviously 

meant to get the last word or to bait others into continued discussions.  As I 

think you know, many people believe they have offered very valid examples of 

what can go wrong in your analyses. 



Perhaps you could at least state, "in my opinion this has never happened"

In my opinion I feel that no matter what evidence is presented to show that 

your inverse assocaition is due to confounding, you will never accept that. I 

have no problems with you continuing to believe that. 



If you or any others want to discuss the merits or limitations of your work or 

any other HP related discussions, please join this new list I promised I would 

start to help protect some of the bandwith of Radsafe. 



RadHealth



http://list.uiowa.edu/archives/radhealth.html



Radiation “discussion” list



Bill Field

> 	I have always simply responded to attacks on my work, using as

> little bandwidth as possible. It is difficult for me to see my work

> attacked and not respond, but I will give it a try. Starting now, I will

> not respond to such attacks by Bill Field or Gary Howard unless requested

> to do so by others. I hope that RADSAFERS will not interpret my silence as

> conceding that the attacks are justified.

> 	I will make an exception if a concrete hypothetical example of

> what can go wrong with my analyses is offered, but this has never happened

> before so it will probably not happen in the future.

> 

> Bernard L. Cohen

> Physics Dept.

> University of Pittsburgh

> Pittsburgh, PA 15260

> Tel: (412)624-9245

> Fax: (412)624-9163

> e-mail: blc@pitt.edu

> web site: http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc

> 

> 

> ************************************************************************

> 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/

> 



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

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/