Ecologic Studies

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

Al,

Melissa has asked that this thread be discontinued.   It is apparent, we
have a difference of opinion on this subject.  I am very willing to have a
constructive dialogue via personal email on this subject if you are
interested.

Regards, Bill Field
bill-field@uiowa.edu



At 05:59 PM 3/5/98 -0600, you wrote:
>R. William Field wrote:
>> 
>> 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 
>
>In science it only takes one set of data to disprove a hypothesis.  Why
>can't all the "scientists" out there get that idea?  Since Bernie's data
>clearly show the linear hypothesis is wrong (at least for lung cancer
>caused by radon exposure), then the hypothesis is wrong for everything. 
>There are other data that demonstrate the LNTH is wrong, see Robley
>Evans' radium data for example.
>
>> or that low level radon exposure is protective against lung
>> cancer.  
>
>He never claimed that his data show radon exposure is protective against
>lung cancer.  Others have used his results to say that (I, myself, have
>done that), but Bernie has never made such a claim.
>
>> Because of the study design used by Dr. Cohen, I think his
>> findings can be given no more weight than a hypothesis.  
>
>I disagreee.  Bernie's study disproves an existing hypothesis.  It does
>not set forth another hypothesis.  It would be interesting for someone
>to set forth another hypothesis for low level cancer effects.  I have
>done so and no one has refuted it yet.  My hypothesis is that there is a
>threshold for radiation induced cancer and that 5 rem per year is it. 
>So where are the data that disprove that hypothesis?
>
>> I think we are in
>> the dark ages regarding our knowledge of the effects of low level
>> radiation.  
>
>Even if there are any real, measurable harmful effects on human
>populations below 5 rem per year, they must be very, very small
>otherwise they would be easy to see with all the studies that have been
>made on the subject.  But we don't see them.  
>
>Under that circumstance, why do we spend billions to lower doses or to
>clean up facilities so future doses are very, very low?  Where does the
>fear come from?  Are the NCRP, ICRP, EPA, DOE people afraid there might
>be a big effect?  In light of current data, such fear is unfounded.  Are
>those people afraid they might not have anything to do?  Possibly.  Are
>they afraid of Congress?  If they are wrong, and there is a threshold,
>they should be.  Are they afraid of the anti nuclear people?  Probably. 
>What are they afraid of?  Maybe just of changing the paradigm.  That's
>ok.  That's just human nature.
>
>> 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.  
>
>No it doesn't.  Well, it might but where are the dollars to do more
>experiments to really determine the shape of the low dose curve?  The
>Federal government won't spend a dime to do that.  We are very luckey to
>have Bernie's data.  I predict it will be a cold day in hell before we
>get another set of data that will really help our plight.  
>
>> Until we have more
>> powerful means of investigation, we should keep all possibilities open.
>
>All we need are dollars.  And millions of people.
>
>Al Tschaeche, CHP  antatnsu@pacbell.net
>

******************************
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
******************************