Pooled studies and their increased sensitivity--is it real? (was Euzropean radon study)

["Richard L. Hess" <lists@richardhess.com>]

Franz Schoenhofer kindly pointed us to the following study: 

http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/abstract/bmj.38308.477650.63v1



This time, for radon, it's a summary of data from multiple other studies.



Previously, I had been pointed to a study of power lines in the British 

Journal of Cancer:

http://www.powerlinefacts.com/British%20Journal%20of%20Cancer%20Abstract%20of%20Meta-Analysis%20of%20Cancer.htm 

(forgive the website that has the link, but it was easier to find, and I 

don't think the study is adulterated there.)



My question is, it seems that while individual studies don't seem to 

identify harmful effects with any statistical certainty, the larger base of 

a pooled study appears to show harmful effects.



But, I'm wondering if these pooled studies also have the potential for 

magnifying the effects in a way that perhaps over-states the overall 

sensitivity to a stimulus.



The reason I'm asking is that it seems that the majority of "ill-effect" 

studies are pooled studies rather than individual ones.



The discussion on arsenic caused me to chuckle in one regard: it is a clear 

example of the dose making the poison, as arsenic is a favoured method of 

doing people in -- at least in novels <smile>.



Cheers,



Richard  





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

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/