Re: $2500 award

[rkathren@tricity.wsu.edu (Ron L. Kathren)]

Bernie --

You've probably thought of this, but it occurred to me that many of the
counties with high radon levels are located in areas which have high
percentages of individuals who lead so-called 'clean' life styles (such as
LDS and SDA), and who spend more time outdoors than indoors.   The latter
could actually result in reduction of exposure. Could this be a factor?
Also, were such factors as snow cover and soil moisture, which inhibit the
emanation of radon from the soil, considered?

Ron Kathren

PS  Forget about the $2500; if what I suggested has any merit whatsoever, I
will be pleased to have made a contribution.  As for the bucks, they could
better be kept by you or given to some deserving charity.

 

     >	My offer of $1000 awards for help on the following matter did not
>prove fruitful, so I am raising the award to $2500 and will try to explain
>in more detail what I am seeking .
>	In the February 1995 issue of HEALTH PHYSICS (vol.69, pp157-174),
>I published a paper entitled 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 (about -8% per pCi/L) as average
>radon exposure increases. This represents a very large discrepancy (20
>standard deviations!!) with the prediction of LNT theory that lung cancer
>rates should increase rapidly (about +7% per pCi/L) with increasing
>average radon exposure . 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 Recological studiesS
>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.
>	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. As a possible
>example, one might suggest that urban people smoke more frequently and for
>unrelated reasons have lower radon exposures than rural people, both of
>which are true. What I need is data for each of our 1601 counties on which
>to do calculations to see if they resolve our discrepancy. You can make-up
>the data, as long as you consider them to be not implausible. Since I need
>these made-up data for each of the 1601 counties, it might be most
>practical to give me a prescription for deriving these data. For example
>you might say that the radon exposure for a rural person is x% higher than
>for an urban person and an urban person is y% more likely to smoke than a
>rural person. Since I know the average radon level in each county, the
>fraction of people in each county who are urban and rural and the fraction
>that smoke, I can then determine the predicted lung cancer rate in each
>county from BEIR-IV for various values of x and y, and make comparisons
>with the data.  
>	The only problem with this example is that I reported calculations
>based on it in Section L of my paper and it did very little to reduce our
>discrepancy. But you might not agree on how I did the calculation and
>suggest an alternative method, or you can suggest some alternative
>prescription for making up the data, perhaps utilizing random numbers or
>anything else you can think of that will allow me to do calculations. Or
>you can just present me with tables of numbers that you consider to be not
>implausible. 
>	I offer a $2500 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 three such awards. If the submitter and I do
>not agree on plausibility, I would be happy to accept the public judgement
>of any prominent radiation health scientist suggested by the submitter
>(letUs define prominent as 10 papers in HEALTH PHYSICS or equivalent
>journals over the past 10 years). I would hope to publish a paper on this
>with the submitter and judge as coauthors, but in any case, the $2500
>award will be paid promptly.
>	Of course the urban-rural effect discussed above was meant only as
>an example; any other ideas would be equally acceptable. 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
>
>
>
>
>
>