Re: The Ultimate Hormesis Paper and LLNL Sunshine

[niton@mchsi.com]

Howard,



I find the majority of your postings incomprehensible.



I really can not continue to take the time to respond to such non substantive 

posts.  



Feel free to write a letter the American Journal of Epidemiology if you feel 

we did not use a valid study design.



http://www.cheec.uiowa.edu/misc/radon.html



Bill Field

> Does Gary say that at LLNL, "Science is secondary to the agenda"?

> 

> Bill Field should note that, as his Iowa radon study had "controls" who were

> not closely matched ( 35% smokers vs 95% smokers for lung cancer cases), the

> LLNL study came up with very different results (no ionizing radiation or

> sunshine causation suggested for melanoma) when they matched controls better

> than the previous study by adding education and work start date.

> 

> Should Field rematch Iowa controls?

> 

> Howard Long

> 

> .----- Original Message -----

> From: "Gary Howard" <radiation@webmail.co.za>

> To: <niton@mchsi.com>

> Cc: <ograabe@UCDAVIS.EDU>; <radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu>

> Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2003 3:16 PM

> Subject: Re: RE: The Ultimate Hormesis Paper

> 

> 

> > Dr. Field,

> >

> > Thank you for taking the time to respond in a substantive way.  But

> > you are wasting your time with this group, science is secondary to

> > agenda.

> >

> > I see that your group of researchers included epidemiologists,



> > pathologists, statisticans, and even a nuclear physicist followed your

> > own advice and published your methodology in the journal you

> > recommended long before your study analyses.

> > ----------------------------------------------------

> > Field RW, Steck DJ, Lynch CF, Brus CP, Neuberger JS, Kross BC,

> > Residential radon-222 exposure and lung cancer: exposure assessment

> > and methodology., J Expo Anal Environ Epidemiol 6: 2, 181-95, Apr-Jun,

> > 1996.

> > -----------------------------

> > http://expertise.cos.com/cgi-bin/exp.cgi?id=323385

> >

> >  If you were like the pro hormesis group or the tooth fairy group, you

> > too could have presented a poster or published your study findings

> > before you even analyzed them correctly in some second-rate journal

> > and really scared people.  What do you need funding for if you already

> > know what your outcome is going to be before a valid analysis?  The

> > Taiwan group could just have easily used a comparions group of people



> > under 30 and found that there is a huge risk from the cobalt.  This is

> > nuts!

> >

> >  I like Jerry's lame comment that a valid study design and methods is

> > messaging the data, while submitting findings at a meeting without

> > even adjustment for age is good science.  You would think with so many

> > authors, maybe even one of them would understand the basic methods of

> > study design.  I have the answer! Add Dr. Long to the list of authors,

> > I bet he would make sure they at least adjusted for hours of sunshine

> > exposure per day.

> >

> > I do appreciate the fact that you provided a logical direction for

> > these scientists who presented the poster.  I would be interested in

> > their associations.  To me this looks like work at the opposite end of

> > the spectrum but not even the quality of the tooth fairy project.

> > But, hey, Jerry, Ted, Ruth and the rest think the cobalt study is good

> > because it produced the right finding (radiation exposure is good) and



> > the tooth fairy project is bad science because it produced the wrong

> > finding (radiation is bad)

> >

> > Don't waste your time trying to help people who have little concern

> > for science, only forwarding their agenda.  If I were one of these

> > scientist working on such a study, I would welcome the chance to work

> > with and take the advice of an experienced epidemiologist.

> >

> > Would you be willing to give them a hand with study design issues if

> > they contacted you?  If these discussions on this topic have to

> > continue, could everyone at least move it over to Dr. Field's new

> > listserv for discussions like these??

> >

> > Gary Howard

> 

> >

> 

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

> 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/