Re: Alternate explanations

["R. William Field" <bill-field@uiowa.edu>]

Andy,

I would say these findings form interesting hypotheses.

Regards, Bill

bill-field@uiowa.edu

At 04:15 PM 3/3/98 -0600, you wrote:
>
>
>
>At 02:58 PM 3/3/98 -0600, R. William Field wrote:
>>Dale,
>>
>>Now that you waded in, you stated "    ",
>>
>>
>>"Dr. Cohen's data show the bodies are missing to a high degree of
precision."
>>
>>How does his data do that?  What do you mean by precision?
>>
>>
>>"Random confounding factors can only dilute the effect not invert it."
>>
>>Why do you think the confounding factors are random?  
>>
>>Dale, I would suggest you get a copy of a paper by Hal Morgenstern,
>>American Journal of Public Health, Uses of Ecologic Analysis in
>>Epidemiologic Research, Volume 72(12)1337-1343, 1982.  
>>
>>"A long time ago I took age adjusted cancer deaths from the 1985
>>American Cancer Society pamplet and plotted them against mean
>>state altitude.  To a very great degree the cancer death rates were anti-
>>correlated with mean altitude and therefore background exposure."
>>
>>Did you adjust the rates for smoking?
>>
>>Regards, Bill Field
>>bill-field@uiowa.edu
>>
>Bill,
>It may be of interest that Frigerio et al, found a similar anti-correlation
>in their study "Carcinogenic Hazard from Low-Level, Low-rate Radiation"
>ANL/ES-26, Part 1
>(1973).  Their study compared the state by state mortality rates for 56 ICD
>classifications of cancer for the years 1950-67   with the state by state
>background
>radiation levels as reported by Minx et al , USEPA ORP/CSD72-1 (1972), and
>found a negative correlation for all cancer types except leukemia (for
>which no correlation was found). While this was admittedly an ecologic
>study (in today's parlance), it raised questions which in my mind merited
>further investigation (which was not made).
>Without belaboring the point, other comparable studies of populations in
>high- and low-background areas in other countries have shown the same.  
>
>While they may not rigorously disprove he applicability of the LN-T to
>low-level, low dose-rate radiation, they seem to me suggestive of its
>non-applicability.
>
>
>Andy Hull
>S&EP Div-BNL
>Upton, NY 11973
>Ph   516344-4210
>Fax  516-344-3105
>e-mail: hull@mail.sep.bnl.gov
>