?Linear Assumption

[HWADE@aol.com]

The statement below recently appeared in criticism of Cohen, who has shown
that the association between radon concentration and cancer is negative

'The ecologic fallacy is "An error in interpreting associations between
ecologic indices.  It is committed by mistakenly assuming that, because the
majority of a group has a characteristic, the characteristic is related to a
health state common in the group" (Slome C, Brogan DR, Eyres SJ, Lednar W.
 Basic Epidemiological Methods and Biostatistics - A Workbook. Boston: Jones
and Bartless, 1986, Chapter 9 & p. 306).  The problem with the ecological
study design is that it doesn't have individual doses linked to individual
people.'

If one believes that data subject to the "ecologic fallacy" should be
disregarded, shouldn't  the Hiroshima and Nagasaki data, that some say
support the Linear Assumption and ALARA, also be disregarded?  Aren't these
data also subject to the "ecologic  fallacy?"

In fact, it appears that the Linear Assumption and ALARA are inherent victims
of the "ecologic fallacy."