RE: If you do Science, use the Scientific Method!

["Hall, David A." <halld@NV.DOE.GOV>]

If I might be so bold.......

 

"The data seems to indicate..." misses the point of the study, and that is

to SUPPORT or REFUTE the LNT theory of radiation carcinogenesis.

As has been mentioned numerous times here on radsafe, there is no ethical

nor practical way to determine (by the scientific method) the true risk to

an individual to induction of cancer by radiation.

 

I consider myself a novice in Health Physics compared to the true experts

here on the list.  When I first learned about Dr. Cohen's paper, the

conclusion of refuting the LNT was obvious from a "common sense" perspective

as well and the "scientific" perspective.  The "Cohen's Paradox" is truly an

interesting paradox.... but in my opinion has no bearing on the validity of

the LNT, nor on individual risks.

 

My simplistic view of the issue is this:  If the LNT is true (small

incremental increase in risk with a small incremental increase in dose),

then it doesn't matter what the distribution of dose is to individuals, just

the sum of the doses (small and large) divided by the number of individuals,

compared with the cancer incidence.

 

Has anyone EVER published a peer-reviewed paper that supports the LNT based

on individual doses in the environmental or occupational dose ranges?

 

We, as professionals need to be ever-vigilant to guard against mis-applying

results of analysis in areas they were not intended to be applied.

 

I have indeed learned much from this forum over the years.  Thank you all

for participating and allowing me to observe.

 

David Hall, Las Vegas, Nevada

(Speaking for myself as an HP novice, and not on behalf of my employer or

any future employers.)

 



-----Original Message-----

From: Kai Kaletsch [mailto:eic@shaw.ca] 

Sent: Friday, September 19, 2003 8:50 AM

To: peter.thomas@health.gov.au; Fritz A. Seiler; RadSafe

Subject: Re: If you do Science, use the Scientific Method!





Peter Thomas wrote:

 

>  It is a simple fact that the risk to an individual cannot be determined

in such a study. 



The data seems to indicate that the risk of lung cancer TO AN INDIVIDUAL is

negatively related to average county radon levels. The lower the average

county radon level, the higher the risk of lung cancer for INDIVIDUALS

living in the county.

 

What can be debated is if this is due to people's cumulative exposure to

radon, some other radon exposure related parameter (such as a few short very

high exposures that stimulate the immune system), something not related to

radon at all (confounding from smoking, age, altitude, terrestrial gamma

etc.), .... . The risk to an individual living in a low radon county seems

to be quite high, whatever the cause might be.

 

Unfortunately, I am not aware of any case control study that was designed to

investigate the risk of lung cancer TO AN INDIVIDUAL as a function of

AVERAGE county radon levels. (This could eliminate some of the more obvious

confounders.) Surely, the technology exists to investigate the risk to an

individual posed by a group level factor. All the case control studies that

I am familiar with try to investigate the relation between risk and people's

cumulative exposure to radon, which could be completely irrelevant to the

ecologic finding.

 

Kai