Re: Ecological Studies

[muckerheide@highway1.com (James Muckerheide)]

H.Wade Patterson wrote:
> 
> POSTED TO RADSAFE
> 
> Group:
> It's a common misconception that so-called "ecological" studies are
> necessarily erroneous. If you will read what I've written below, perhaps
> you will take a different view.
> 
> Best wishes,
> --
> Wade
> 
Wade, and all, An excellent response. You have made very clear the point
that gets studiously ignored: that the only concern about ecological
studies is for "weaknesses" that apply under certain conditions and must
be "considered" when they are applied. Note however 3 further points: 

1. the fact that eco epi studies are pervasive and applied with a level
of confidence by the bureaucracies somewhat beyond their rigorous
scientific justification is at total odds with the argument that eco epi
is fallacious; 

2. testing a proposed relationship is far removed technically from
showing a positive relationship - consider that: If A and B are
statistically correlated, you can't know or say anything about whether
they are causally related; but, to the contrary, if A and B are presumed
to be causally related, and a study (that is repetitively confirmed)
shows no correlation, you can state with confidence that the presumed
causal relation is false. (As Fritz Seiler as demonstrated in rigorous
mathematical terms, and which as he states "the theory has been
falsified"; and 

3. the terminology that "It's a common misperception that 'ecological'
studies are necessarily erroneous" should be: since, as you show, and
the science applies, the fact of ecological studies in science does not
indicate a "common misconception", but rather that this is a statement
unique  to the radiation health effects, leading to what Walinder,
Jaworowski, and other senior scientists in biology and health have
described as ICRP and UNSCEAR efforts to discredit reality as
inconsistent with established biases and interests. This is consistent
with many other examples of the biases in sciences in the face of
contradictory data. Walinder, after describing examples of introducing
bias thru "adjustments" in the analysis when results don't agree with
the models (specifically referring to RERF), states that this is not
"deliberate manipulation" but rather what normally happens when the
vested interests of established models are faced with reality. (See
Thomas Kuhn's writings on the difficulty of changing a scientific
paradigm with objective evidence, and the many others who have written
on the experience. Consider that the Michaelson-Morley experiment didn't
usher in "modern phyisics" the way we see it in hindsight in the
textbooks, until the old-guard died! And that was before the influence
of massive government bureaucracies and funding to influence the
interests and answers. 

Thanks.

Regards, Jim Muckerheide
jmuckerheide@delphi.com


> Are All Ecological Studies Fallacious?; Not Necessarily.
> 
> In this forum and elsewhere, ecological studies have been deemed
> fallacious, simply because their authors have assumed that, since the
> majority of a group has a characteristic, the characteristic is related
> to a health state common in the group. Such wholesale judgments are
> incorrect because:
> 
> 1. The ecologic fallacy is committed only when it is MISTAKENLY assumed
> that, because the majority of a group has a characteristic, the
> characteristic is related to a health state common in the group.
> 
> 2. Thus, it is ONLY fallacious when the assumption is MISTAKEN.
> 
> 3.It is not, therefore, NECESSARILY fallacious to assume that because
> the majority of a group has a characteristic, the characteristic is
> related to a health state common in the group.
> 
> Here are examples of ecological studies that were not fallacious. i.e.,
> the assumption of an association was correct.
> a. During the latter years of the Roman Republic it was correctly
> observed that dwelling near the Pontine marshes ( group characteristic)
> was unhealthy (health state).
> b. A British physician * correctly observed that chimney sweeps (group
> characteristic) suffered a high incidence of cancer of the scrotum
> (health state).
> c. Another British physician, Edward Jenner, correctly observed that
> milkmaids (group characteristic)  had a decreased incidence of smallpox
> (health state).
> 
> Thus, it seems that unless the observation is MISTAKEN, the association
> may be correct.
> 
> Finally, therefore, the observations of a particular ecological study
> must be shown to be incorrect before the association is so judged.
> 
> Examples of ecological studies where it has not been shown that the
> observations are incorrect include:
> 
> 1. Craig, L.; Seidman, H. Leukemia and lymphoma mortality in relation to
> cosmic radiation. Blood 17 : 319, 1961.
> 
> 2. Frigerio, N.A.; Ekerman, K.F.; Stowe, R.S. The Argonne Radiological
> Impact Program (ARIP), Part I. Carcinogenic Hazard from Low-Level,
> Low-Rate Radiation; ANL/ES-26 Part I, Environmental and Earth Sciences,
> Sept. 1973.
> 
> 3. Frigerio, N.A.; Stowe, R.S.; Carcinogenic and genetic hazard from
> background radiation. IAEA Symposium, Biological and Environmental
> Effects of Low Level Radiation, vol. 2, pp 285-289, Vienna, 1976.
> 
> 4. Luckey, T. D., Physiological benefits from low levels of ionizing
> radiation. Health Physics, v43, 6, pp 771-789, (1982).
> 
> 5. Wei, L.X.; Zha, Y.R.; Tao , Z.F.; He, W.H.; Chen, D.Q.; Yuan, Y.L.
> Epidemiological investigation of radiological effects in high background
> radiation areas of Yangjiang, China. Journal of Radiation Research, 31,
> 1, pp 119-136, 1990.
> 
> 6. Nambi, K.S.V.; Soman, S.D. Further observations on environmental
> radiation and cancer in India. Health Physics, 59, 3, pp 339-344, 1990.
> 
> 7. Chen, D.; Wei, L. Chromosome aberration, cancer mortality and
> hormetic phenomena among inhabitants in areas of high background
> radiation in China. Journal of Radiation Research, 32 Suppl. 2, pp
> 46-53, 1991.
> 
> 8. Shihab-Eldin, A.; Shlyakhter, A.; Wilson, R. Is There a Large Risk of
> Radiation? A Critical Review of Pessimistic Claims. Environment
> International, 18, pp. 117-151, 1992.
> 
> 9. Latarjet, R. Radiation carcinogenesis and radiation protection.
> Cancer J., 5, pp 23-27, 1992.
> 
> 10. Biological effects of low level exposures : dose-response
> relationships. Edward J. Calabrese, editor. Boca Raton : Lewis
> Publishers, c1994.
> 
> 11. Hickey, R. J.; Bowers, E. J.; Spence, D. E.; Zemel, B. S.; Clelland,
> A. B.; Clelland, R. C. Low Level Ionizing Radiation And Human Mortality
> : Multi-Regional Epidemiological Studies. A Preliminary Report. Health
> Phys. 40(5) :625-641; May, 1981
> 
> 12. Hickey, R. J.; Bowers, E. J.; Clelland, R. C.; . Radiation hormesis,
> public health, and public policy: a commentary. Health Phys. 44(3)
> :207-219; March, 1983
> 
> * I wish to thank David Perry of the Rutherford Laboratoy for the
> complete citattion which is: Pott, Percival (1714-1788), English
> physician who is eponymically known for spinal deformity due to
> tuberculosis. He was also first to describe chimney sweep's cancer
> (carcinoma of the scrotum).