Re: Radon Health Hazard, Myth or Reality?

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

On Wed, 5 Nov 1997, John Goldsmith wrote:

>      In comparison to Dr. Cohen, the authors, such as Samet and Radford
> and Lundin and Whittemore and Jorgenson and Axelson, all of whom are
> competent in epidemiology, have done most careful work in dealing with
> confounding. All of them have dealt explicitly with smoking, for example,
> which, with his data sources, was difficult for Dr. Cohen.               
> 
>   John Goldsmith

	--I have done a tremendous amount of careful work on confounding
in my study including now over 500 potential confounding factors. I
treated confounding by very powerful techniques. In my treatment of
smoking, I showed that the correlation with smoking required to explain
any substantial part of the discrepancy with theory is completely
implausible. I consider this to be an extremely powerful treatment. If
Goldsmith has a not implausible suggestion of what is wrong with my study,
why doesn't he offer it, preferably in a letter to the Editor