[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: LNT and whose junk science?



> 
> As for the work of Cohen, I was extremely impressed with his analysis.
> Since the results are extremely surprising, one must question if an
> ecological study is appropriate, since the radon doses assigned are average
> values for the entire county.  Cohen's results are not unique, the UNSCEAR
> 1994 report lists numerous other radon ecological studies - some show a
> negative lung cancer rate with dose, some non-significant, and some a
> significant positive lung cancer rate with dose.  I have not read each of
> the other ecological studies, but one must question the fundamentals of
> ecological studies for radon, since the results are so diverse.
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> Darryl Kaurin, Ph.D.
> Brookhaven National Laboratory
> Safety and Environmental Protection Division
> Building 535A
> Upton, NY 11973-5000
> (516)344-3166
> kaurin@mail.sep.bnl.gov

---Ecological studies are not very useful as a method for determining
dose-response relationships, but, as pointed out repeatedly in my papers
(but widely ignored) it is  a valid method for testing a linear-no
threshold theory. All other ecological studies try to do the former and
hence are susceptible to "the ecological fallacy", but the ecological
fallacy is not applicable to my paper.
	Also, my study contains far more data than all other ecological
studies combined. For these and other reasons, my study should not be
discussed in the same breath with other ecological studies. I can easily
find holes in any of them, but after years of trying, I have not been able
to find a hole in mine.
		--B. Cohen