Cohen's "discrepancy": More Radon - LESS lung cancer (Co Mortality)

[howard long <hflong@pacbell.net>]

No, Steve,

Cohen's data has far less p of chance, including smoking confounding, than case-control studies like Fields' (site selection and # problems) or miners' high exposure cancers  (extrapolation beyond the data).

 

Look again at Cohen's graphs of confidence limit bars, smoking or not.  Like 100 other confounders, smoking does not straighten the curve (non-linear). 

 

Linear risk is unnatural for any food, medicine or sunshine. LNT never existed except in theory. LNT was a hologram projected by lazy bureaucrats to simplify their dictates.   

 

Howard Long



Steve Miller <SMiller@nukeworker.com> wrote:



Please see previous Radsafe post by Mr. Howard - http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/0306/msg00282.html



The recent article in the Health Physics Journal puts to rest for me the validity of Dr. Cohen's assertions that he has shown the LNTT is invalid. I think a respectable end has arrived! Even a physicist on the committee agrees the inverse finding is smoking related. Dr. Cohen's rebuttal is not convincing. This issued has now been argued ad nauseum for the past 10 years. Can we find agreement it is now over?? 



RESIDENTIAL RADON EXPOSURE AND LUNG CANCER RISK: COMMENTARY ON COHEN'S COUNTY-BASED STUDY. 

Health Physics. 87(6):647-655, December 2004.

Heath, C W. Jr *; Bond, P D. +; Hoel, D G. ++; Meinhold, C B. +[S] 

Abstract: 

mdash;: The large United States county-based study ( Cohen 1995, 2001) in which an inverse relationship has been suggested between residential low-dose radon levels and lung cancer mortality has been reviewed. While this study has been used to evaluate the validity of the linear nonthreshold theory, the grouped nature of its data limits the usefulness of this application. Our assessment of the study's approach, including a reanalysis of its data, also indicates that the likelihood of strong, undetected confounding effects by cigarette smoking, coupled with approximations of data values and uncertainties in accuracy of data sources regarding levels of radon exposure and intensity of smoking, compromises the study's analytic power. The most clear data for estimating lung cancer risk from low levels of radon exposure continue to rest with higher-dose studies of miner populations in which projections to zero dose are consistent with estimates arising from most case-control studi

!

 es!

!

regarding residential exposure.



Steve Miller



_____________________________________________________________

NukeWorker.com is the only internet portal for Nuclear Workers, it offers FREE Email service, message boards, chat rooms, outage schedules, and job hunting services.

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

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/