Re: $1000 awards

["Dr. M. Pillay" <pillay@ngoh.azr.nl>]

Dear Bernard,

I will appreciate a copy of this data file.

Thanks in advance,

Mike




> OFFER OF $1000 AWARDS
> 	Bernard L. Cohen
> 	University of Pittsburgh
> 
> 	In the February 1995 issue of HEALTH PHYSICS (vol.69, pp157-174),
> I published a paper on "Test of the linear - no threshold (LNT) theory of
> radiation carcinogenesis....." in which I reported that lung cancer
> mortality rates for U.S. Counties, with or without correction for smoking
> prevalence, decreases rapidly as average radon exposure increases. This
> represents a large discrepancy with the prediction of LNT theory that lung
> cancer rates should increase rapidly with increasing average radon
> exposure ("rapidly" here means about 7% per pCi/L). My problem is in
> understanding this discrepancy.
> 	I have examined the effects of over 60 confounding factors, and
> have done many other tests, but this work has done little to explain our
> discrepancy. I have gone through the literature on "ecological studies"
> and can easily show how the results of any other published ecological
> study can be erroneous, but I cannot figure out how one can avoid
> concluding from our data that LNT theory fails in this low dose region
> where it has never been tested. A very important  difference between my
> study and the others is that they are trying to determine a cause-effect
> relationship, whereas I am only trying to test a very definite theory. 
> 	What I need very badly is suggestions for "not implausible"
> specific potential explanations for our discrepancy, in at least
> semi-quantitative numerical terms, on which I can carry out calculations
> to determine if they can resolve it, or can be modified to resolve it. For
> example, one might suggest correlations between specified socioeconomic
> variables (I could then calculate the required correlation coefficients),
> or specified irregular variations of specified confounding factors with
> age or economic status, or ............
> 	I offer a $1000 award to anyone who submits a suggestion that,
> after a detailed evaluation, leads to a not-implausible explanation of our
> discrepancy. I can give up to five such awards. If the submitter does not
> agree with my judgement on plausibility, I would be happy to accept the
> public judgement of any prominent radiation health scientist suggested by
> the submitter (by "prominent" let's say 10 papers in HEALTH PHYSICS over
> the past 10 years --or something equivalent). I would hope to publish a
> paper on this, with the submitter and judge as coauthors if they like.
> 	Alternative suggestions for implementing my offer would be most
> welcome. I really need help on this problem.
> 	If anyone would like a copy of our data file, I would be happy to
> provide it.
> 
> Bernard L. Cohen
> Physics Dept.
> University of Pittsburgh
> Pittsburgh, PA 15260
> Tel: (412)624-9245
> Fax: (412)624-9163
> e-mail: blc+@pitt.edu
> 
> 
> 
Dr. M. Pillay
Dept. of Nuclear Medicine
Dr. Daniel den Hoed Cancer Center
P.O. Box 5201
3008 AE Rotterdam.
Netherlands.
tel: 31-10-4391343
fax: 31-10-4863357