Re: Bernie Cohen's test of LNT

[Bernard L Cohen <blc+@pitt.edu>]

	My analysis of radon vs smoking is published in "Statistics in
Medicine", Vol 14, p.327-328; 1995. It does show the expected correlation
between smoking prevalence and lung cancer in statistically indisputable
analyses. This is the analysis Ken is requesting.
	 On the other hand, this is an ecological study and I have never
claimed that an ecological study can determine a dose-response
relationship. I only use it to test the linear-no threshold theory, for
which application the "ecological fallacy" does not apply.
	The reason I published the analysis referenced above was to point
out a horrible error in a paper by Sander Greenland in which he claimed
that the ecological study did not show the smoking vs. lung cancer
relationship. He used a formula in which he used percent as a fraction --
e.g. he used 0.5 instead of 50, a factor of 100 error.  

Bernard L. Cohen
Physics Dept.
University of Pittsburgh
Pittsburgh, PA 15260
Tel: (412)624-9245
Fax: (412)624-9163
e-mail: blc+@pitt.edu


On Thu, 30 Jan 1997, Ken Mossman wrote:

> Radsafers:
> 
> It would appear that one test of the validity of Bernie's conclusions =
> would be to look at the relationship between cigarette consumption and =
> lung cancer mortality. According to the American Cancer Society, =
> cigarettes explain 80-90% of lung cancer deaths. There is over 40 years =
> of epidemiological research (Hammond and others) clearly establishing a =
> positive dose-response between smoking (as measured by cigarette packs =
> per day) and lung cancer mortality. I know Bernie has used cigarette =
> consumption data to correct for smoking as a confounding variable in his =
> analysis, but I have not seen a separate analysis of  the relationship =
> between lung cancer deaths versus cigarette consumption.
> 
> It would seem to me that if the resulting analysis is consistent with =
> other epidemiological studies (particularly with regard to the slope of =
> the dose-response curve), Bernie's conclusions about a negative =
> correlation between radon and lung cancer deaths would be bolstered (not =
> necessarily proven). However, if the analysis of cigarette consumtion =
> versus lung cancer mortality using Bernie's data are inconsistent with =
> previous findings, that would invalidate Bernie's conclusions.
> 
> Ken Mossman (ken.mossman@asu.edu)=20
> Kenneth L. Mossman
> Professor of Health Physics
> Arizona State University
> Tempe, Arizona 85287-2701
> Voice: 602-965-0584
> FAX: 602-991-4998
> E-mail: ken.mossman@asu.edu=20
>