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

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

Al --

Got a great idea regarding the Wing/Cohen papers.  Why don't we take up a
collection among RadSafers to get $5K.  We could then give Cohen $2500 to
critique Wing's paper, and Wing $2500 to critique Cohen's paper!  Care to
contribute to the cause?  I'll volunteer the first $25.

Ron 

..

>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)
>
>