Reward offer

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

Consider this message as a definite reward offer. I also welcome any
suggestions or comments on the explanation of the reward.

Bernard L. Cohen
Physics Dept.
University of Pittsburgh
Pittsburgh, PA 15260
Tel: (412)624-9245
Fax: (412)624-9163
e-mail: blc+@pitt.edu

REWARD OFFER

	Bernard L. Cohen
	University of Pittsburgh
	
	There has been considerable confusion and misunderstanding about
my offer of a reward for proposing a "not implausible"
explanation for the huge discrepancy between the predictions of the
BEIR-IV linear-no threshold theory and the observed dependence of lung
cancer rates on average home radon levels in U.S. Counties, which was
pointed out in my paper, HEALTH PHYSICS 68:157-174; 1995. The purpose of
this note is to make my offer clearer and simpler.
	Any proposer of an explanation should send it to me in very
specific terms -- a single paragraph would normally be sufficient.
Numerical values of dependent variables need not be given; I will explore
the effect of varying them in analyzing the proposal. There is no need for
the proposer to prove the validity of his proposal. The burden of proof is
on me.
	I will evaluate the proposal and attempt to show that it is highly
implausible as an explanation of the discrepancy. If I fail to do this in
my own judgement, I will award the proposer $2500 and publish a
concession. If the proposer does not agree that I have shown his proposal
to be highly implausible , I will award him $1000 provided we publish a
joint paper containing his proposal and my demonstration, and explaining
both of our positions on plausibility.
	Alternatively at the proposer's discretion, he can select a
prominent scientist (defined as one who has published at least 7 articles
over the past 10 years in HEALTH PHYSICS or an equivalently prestigious
journal) to make a judgement, and if the prominent scientist agrees with
his position, I will award the two of them a total of $2500, provided we
publish a joint 3-author paper explaining our positions.
	Note the following features of my offer:
	(1) The burden of proof is entirely on me; there is no need for
the proposer to prove anything.
	(2) The judgement of plausibility is made by the proposer, or by a
prominent scientist he selects. The awards do not depend on my judgements.
	If anyone thinks my offer is not fair, or could be made more fair,
please let me know. 
	To be certain there is no confusion, the proposal should explain
the discrepancy between the predictions of BEIR-IV theory and the
observations, without abandoning the BEIR-IV theory. The proposal should
not be one already treated in my published papers.