Re: Wing: Descriptive Epidemiology by Any Other Name...

[xat@inel.gov (Alden Tschaeche)]

John Moulder wrote:


> Some comments based on my first reading of the article.

> Quick Hill criteria analysis:
> 
> - Strength of association:  Weak, relative risks are generally below 2 for the
> groups with the highest exposures.
> 
> - Consistency:  None, results are inconsistent with all other epidemiological
> studies of radiation induced cancer.
> 
> - Specificity:  Little relevance, as we know that radiation can induce a
> number of different types of cancer.
> 
> - Temporality:  Okay, the reported increase was after exposure.
> 
> - Biological gradient:  Unknown, no analysis of exposure-response done.
> 
> - Plausibility:  None.  There is no other epidemiological or experimental
> evidence to support relative risks this high at this dose.  With the possible
> exception of leukemia, there is also no data to support latency periods this
> short.
> 
> - Coherence:  None.  Interpretation of the results is incompatible with
> essentially everything else that is known about radiation-induced cancer.
> 
> - Experiment:  None.  The experimental data on radiation-induced leukemia and
> lung cancer does not support effects at this dose, or in the cancer of lung
> cancer, a latency period this short.
> 
> - Analogy.  None that I can think of.  That is, I know of other cases where a
> low level environmental exposure has produced an effect that is incompatible
> with the results of higher dose exposures and incompatible with substantial
> experimental evidence.
> 
> - Overall:  The observed associations, but themselves, add little or nothing
> to our knowledge of the effects of low level radiation exposure.

So, who's going to take this information and write an article for the
media??  Al Tschaeche  xat@inel.gov (last 2 hours)