[ RadSafe ] Re: Radiation deficiency remediation - nuclear power promotion

[John Jacobus]

May be it has more to do with epidemiology and not
arithmetic.  It may be at a higher level of
mathematics, like statistics.  As for Cohen's data,
the interpretation of the data is still problematic. 
See 

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.


and Dr. Cohen's rebuttal
RESPONSE TO "RESIDENTIAL RADON EXPOSURE AND LUNG
CANCER RISK: COMMENTARY ON COHEN'S COUNTY-BASED
STUDY". Health Physics. 87(6):656-658, December 2004.
Cohen, Bernard L.

If you do not have a copy, let me know.  I never want
to be accused of selectively withholding data.

--- howard long <hflong at pacbell.net> wrote:
> Not necessarily. To illustrate, look at Cohen's
> graph where the larger populations  with lower
> exposure to radon had higher lung cancer mortality
> rates. Just arithmetic.
>  
> Howard Long
> 
> John Jacobus <crispy_bird at yahoo.com> wrote:
> That may be true, but that is not the problem here. 
> Again, what is the problem with the data in the 1977
> report. If their was a beneficial effect, wouldn't
> the number of breast cancers for those receiving 1-9
> rads plus those receiving 0 rads still be less than
> the expected number of cancers? No LNT, just
> epidemiology.
> 
> --- howard long wrote:
> 
> > MINGLING is the error.
> > Howard
> > 
> > John Jacobus wrote:
> > How so? If there are B cancers in the 0 - 1 rad
> > group, O cancers in the observed group of 1 - 9
> rad
> > group, and E cancers in the expected cohort group
> > not
> > receiving any radiation exposure, shouldn't the
> > table
> > on page 802 of the 1977 paper shows that B + O < E
> > if
> > the population are normalized to the same sizes? 
> > Since B + O > E, where is the beneficial effect?
> Is
> > that hard to understand? You say you studied
> > epidemiology, so you should understand this
> process.
> > 
> > And what does "WHI hides the benefit of hormone
> > replacement by mingling smokers with non-smokers"
> > have
> > to do with this discussion?
> > 
> > --- howard long wrote:
> > 
> > > Mingling the 0-1 rad exposures with the 1-9 rad
> > > exposures, HIDES the hormesis,
> > > as WHI hides the benefit of hormone replacement
> by
> > > mingling smokers with non-smokers.
> > > . . .

+++++++++++++++++++
"Embarrassed, obscure and feeble sentences are generally, if not always, the result of embarrassed, obscure and feeble thought."
Hugh Blair, 1783

-- John
John Jacobus, MS
Certified Health Physicist
e-mail:  crispy_bird at yahoo.com


		
__________________________________ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Plan great trips with Yahoo! Travel: Now over 17,000 guides!
http://travel.yahoo.com/p-travelguide