Re: ?Ecological Fallacy

[JMUCKERHEIDE@delphi.com]

David,
 
> > I suppose another example of the ecologic fallacy is the relation between
> > iodine and goiter.
> > 
> > We all know that living in an area with a lack of iodine in soil (majority of
> > a group has this characteristic) causes an greater incidence of goiter ( a
> > health state common to the group). 
> >
> This situation makes one suspicious, but the cause of goiter is 
> _proven_ only by examining _individual_ iodine intake and diagnosed 
> goiter.  

You misrepresent the conclusion. The proof of the cause at the individual
level "proves" the validity of ecological epi studies, with the caveat that
_positive_ effects must show some causal connection. 

Of course, this does not exist in, e.g., the uranium miners who can NOT be
shown to have contracted lung cancer from radon exposure. 

Whereas _negative_ or null effects in ecological studies CAN refute a proposed 
causal connection, ie, IF radon actually caused lung cancer, then the German
waterworks maintenance workers that work in 100,000s pCi/L concentrations MUST 
have a lung cancer effect (they do not, so lung cancer is shown NOT to cause
cancer at high doses). The same is true for workers and residents in radon
spas and surrounding areas and other high-background areas (including some
data with individual radiation monitoring and health effects tracking). 

>Are we health physicists 

I suspect that MOST hp's may not be adequately trained in the science,
especially since the federal funding mandates for university programs pushed
the related work out of the curriculums starting in the late 60's (I confirmed 
this from credible, involved, sources in the late '70s), but some of the
(few?)  _scientific_  members of the profession have been addressing epi
issues for more than 30 years, though those who came up with facts
inconvenient to the federal policy process were "dissuaded" from pursuing
substantial work and even criticizing published results. 

>so arrogant that we 

Who's "we" -- surely you are not "arrogant" enough to think that all hp's have 
only the limited interest or understanding in the subject that you do?  

Who are you to speak for the whole "profession", much less for individuals
whose personal and professional interests are not limited to measuring
radiation and parroting that "all radiation is bad" ?  Many "hp's" actually
used to know some biology and science.  :-)  And HPS leadership is currently
digesting and responding to the science that clearly refutes these fallacious
results, reinforced by the very substantial new biology that absolutely
contradicts the linear model. 

As Dr. Cohen among others notes, the stimulatory effect of the "priming" dose
that provides the proven "protective effect" can not co-exist with the idea
that an effect can exist that is simply linearly proportional to the number of 
hits. There can be no "linear stochastic effect". Not to mention the new
carcinogenesis and genetic research responses shown to cause stimulated repair 
processes, apoptosis (cell self-killing) and cellular communication, and, eg,
p53 gene production of  tumor-suppressor proteins -- which have caused
remission of existing cancers in human subjects. THIS is the source of causal
data that can provide the confirmation of the  _reality_  of the clearly
evident ecologic epi data (that many epi's are afraid will be proven correct). 

>think that our snap judgements 

Sounds like you are reflecting your own view/knowledge of the subject, not the 
many of those many hp's who have dealt in the science and the biology and the
epi data for more than 20 or 30 years. 

>about epidemiologic techniques are more valid than 
> those who have examined the techniques for years?

But you only seem to listen to "those who" have a narrow conclusion and
agenda. 

Are you ignoring the data and the technical understanding to "listen" only to
obfuscating rhethoric from a few epi's with a biased agenda? As Nobel Laureate 
Richard Feynmann explained, you have to listen to the data. Ignoring data
because "somebody" says its not good, instead of presenting and reviewing
substantive data and analysis, is not the way of science. If there is a
technical criticism of the quality/validity of the data, or of the
organization/interpretation of the data, then they/you have an entre into the
technical debate. Otherwise its the way of politics, and religion, not
science. 

> David Scherer
> scherer@uiuc.edu

Regards, Jim