Radon case-control studies vs ecologic studies

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

I truly do not want to start this thread up again.  But, I have to respond
to the latest statement directed at me (see below).  Jim states he has
little confidence in the dose assessment methods employed by the Iowa Radon
Lung Cancer Study.  I just want to ask Jim, how familiar are you with our
study methodology?  



Bill Field
bill-field@uiowa.edu 



Unfortunately, it didn't seem to address the fact that radon case-control
studies have worse statistics because the doses are not known than Cohen's
ecological study, and are therefore less reliable. I hope Bill Field's
efforts 
to better quantify actual doses improves this data, but there can't be much
confidence in that based on what the experts know about the uncertain lung
doses associated with radon levels. Without actual doses, any case-control
studies lose their advantage of finding a meaningful result with small
numbers 
of cases and controls. Semantics about definitions are not relevant to
testing 
statistical validity of the attempt of science to reflect reality thru
mathematics and modeling. I would still appreciate any comments on the
significance of knowing the dose to case-control studies.) 

>Regards, Jim Muckerheide
>muckerheide@mediaone.net