Heuristic endeavors

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

Tony, 

This may surprise you, but I think it is "possible" that he may have hit
the nail on the head.  I just don't think his study has "proven" that the
LNTT is invalid or that low level radon exposure is protective against lung
cancer.  Because of the study design used by Dr. Cohen, I think his
findings can be given no more weight than a hypothesis.  I think we are in
the dark ages regarding our knowledge of the effects of low level
radiation.  Dr's Cohen's work is very heuristic.  I believe it is good for
Science.  It spurs others to seek the answers to the shape of the dose
response curve at low level radiation exposures.  Until we have more
powerful means of investigation, we should keep all possibilities open.

Regards, Bill Field



At 07:11 AM 3/4/98 -0600, ANTHONY F. ARMAGNO wrote:
>Dr. Field,
>    Has it occurred to you that Dr. Cohen may have hit the nail on the head? 
>His arguments for "scrapping" the LNT model are every bit as compelling,
>perhaps more so, than the arguments which established it.  Namely that no
>effects existed at the low doses, but radiation CAN'T be beneficial!  Dr.
>Cohen's study was exhaustive and provides, AGAIN, that the LNT model simply
>doesn't reflect reality.
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------
>Anthony F. (Tony) Armagno
>Northeast Utilities Millstone Station
>Tele: (860) 437-2519
>E-Mail: armagaf@gwsmtp.nu.com
>According to Cowboy Wisdom: There's more ways to skin a cat than stickin' his
>head in a boot jack and jerkin' on his tail!
>

******************************
R. William Field, Ph.D.
Division of Epidemiology
Department of Preventive Medicine
  and Environmental Health
N222 Oakdale Hall
University of Iowa
Iowa City, Iowa 52242
319-335-4413 (phone)
319-335-4747 (fax)
mailto:bill-field@uiowa.edu
******************************