Re: A respectable end to Cohen's LNTT radon debate has arrived!

[BLHamrick@AOL.COM]

In a message dated 11/29/2004 5:22:38 PM Pacific Standard Time,  

WesVanPelt@att.net writes:



They did  re-analyze Cohen's lung cancer versus radon data and found the  same

negative correlation! After correcting for smoking, they still found  the

negative correlation that Cohen did. Then, the authors claim that this  can

not be so because it does not fit their preconceived notion that  radon

causes lung cancer. Their only explanation is a supposition that  some

unknown correlation involving smoking causes a systematic  discrepancy,

particularly in low radon counties. They give no quantitative  theoretical

basis (not even hypothetical numerical relationships) as to how  this unknown

correlation is giving the "wrong answer".



I think  Cohen's treatment is much more analytical, numerical and,

ultimately,  convincing. I welcome comments.





I agree with your assessment.  The bottom line comes down, as Dr.  Cohen has 

oft repeated, to providing a plausible, quantitative alternative  smoking 

correlation that would affect the end result (i.e., turn the negative  slope to 

zero or positive).  Postulating that there must be some unknown  correlation 

that would do this has no scientific value.

 

Barbara L. Hamrick, CHP, JD