Response to Cohen

Puskin, Jerome S.; James, Anthony; Nelson, N.S.

doi:10.1097/00004032-200402000-00014

Cited by 4 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Many attempts have been made to find the flaws in his study and in his conclusion, all of them successfully rebutted by Cohen (Puskin 2003 , 2010 ; Heath et al 2004 ; Puskin et al 2004 ). After obtaining his unexpected result, Cohen sought the explanation in biology and discovered the existence of the hormetic effect, of which he had originally been ignorant.…”

Section: Errors Of Biological Commission and Omission In Radiation Scmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…Meanwhile papers that demonstrate the falsity of LNT—such as those by Cohen (described above) or Sponsler and Cameron ( 2005 ), who found that nuclear shipyard workers experience lower rates of cancer and enjoy greater longevity than their fellow shipyard workers whose work is remote from the nuclear reactors (a control group chosen to eliminate the healthy worker effect—a frequent assumption proffered to explain studies demonstrating hormesis) do not enjoy such lackadaisical review. Instead they are the subject of concerted, though inaccurate, efforts at refutation (Boice 2001 ; Puskin 2003 , 2010 ; Heath et al 2004 ; Puskin et al 2004 ).…”

Section: Errors Of Biological Commission and Omission In Radiation Scmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Epidemiology Without Biology: False Paradigms, Unfounded Assumptions, and Specious Statistics in Radiation Science (with Commentaries by Inge Schmitz-Feuerhake and Christopher Busby and a Reply by the Authors)

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Radiation science is dominated by a paradigm based on an assumption without empirical foundation. Known as the linear no-threshold (LNT) hypothesis, it holds that all ionizing radiation is harmful no matter how low the dose or dose rate. Epidemiological studies that claim to confirm LNT either neglect experimental and/or observational discoveries at the cellular, tissue, and organismal levels, or mention them only to distort or dismiss them. The appearance of validity in these studies rests on circular reasoning, cherry picking, faulty experimental design, and/or misleading inferences from weak statistical evidence. In contrast, studies based on biological discoveries demonstrate the reality of hormesis: the stimulation of biological responses that defend the organism against damage from environmental agents. Normal metabolic processes are far more damaging than all but the most extreme exposures to radiation. However, evolution has provided all extant plants and animals with defenses that repair such damage or remove the damaged cells, conferring on the organism even greater ability to defend against subsequent damage. Editors of medical journals now admit that perhaps half of the scientific literature may be untrue. Radiation science falls into that category. Belief in LNT informs the practice of radiology, radiation regulatory policies, and popular culture through the media. The result is mass radiophobia and harmful outcomes, including forced relocations of populations near nuclear power plant accidents, reluctance to avail oneself of needed medical imaging studies, and aversion to nuclear energy—all unwarranted and all harmful to millions of people.

show abstract

Section: Errors Of Biological Commission and Omission In Radiation Scmentioning

confidence: 96%

Section: Errors Of Biological Commission and Omission In Radiation Scmentioning

confidence: 99%

Epidemiology Without Biology: False Paradigms, Unfounded Assumptions, and Specious Statistics in Radiation Science (with Commentaries by Inge Schmitz-Feuerhake and Christopher Busby and a Reply by the Authors)

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Variation with socioeconomic status of indoor radon levels in Great Britain: The less affluent have less radon

Kendall

Miles

Rees

et al. 2016

Journal of Environmental Radioactivity

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We demonstrate a strong correlation between domestic radon levels and socio-economic status (SES) in Great Britain, so that radon levels in homes of people with lower SES are, on average, only about two thirds of those of the more affluent. This trend is apparent using small area measures of SES and also using individual social classes. The reasons for these differences are not known with certainty, but may be connected with greater underpressure in warmer and better-sealed dwellings. There is also a variation of indoor radon levels with the design of the house (detached, terraced, etc.). In part this is probably an effect of SES, but it appears to have other causes as well. Data from other countries are also reviewed, and broadly similar effects seen in the United States for SES, and in other European countries for detached vs other types of housing. With smoking, this tendency for the lower SES groups to experience lower radon levels may underlie the negative association between radon levels and lung cancer rates in a well-known ecological study based on US Counties. Those conducting epidemiological studies of radon should be alert for this effect and control adequately for SES.

show abstract

Residential Radon Exposure and Lung Cancer Risk: Commentary on Cohen???s County-Based Study

Pd²,

Dg³

et al. 2004

Health Physics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The large United States county-based study () in which an inverse relationship has been suggested between residential low-dose radon levels and lung cancer mortality has been reviewed. While this study has been used to evaluate the validity of the linear nonthreshold theory, the grouped nature of its data limits the usefulness of this application. Our assessment of the study's approach, including a reanalysis of its data, also indicates that the likelihood of strong, undetected confounding effects by cigarette smoking, coupled with approximations of data values and uncertainties in accuracy of data sources regarding levels of radon exposure and intensity of smoking, compromises the study's analytic power. The most clear data for estimating lung cancer risk from low levels of radon exposure continue to rest with higher-dose studies of miner populations in which projections to zero dose are consistent with estimates arising from most case-control studies regarding residential exposure.

show abstract

Response to Cohen

Cited by 4 publications

References 2 publications

Epidemiology Without Biology: False Paradigms, Unfounded Assumptions, and Specious Statistics in Radiation Science (with Commentaries by Inge Schmitz-Feuerhake and Christopher Busby and a Reply by the Authors)

Epidemiology Without Biology: False Paradigms, Unfounded Assumptions, and Specious Statistics in Radiation Science (with Commentaries by Inge Schmitz-Feuerhake and Christopher Busby and a Reply by the Authors)

Variation with socioeconomic status of indoor radon levels in Great Britain: The less affluent have less radon

Residential Radon Exposure and Lung Cancer Risk: Commentary on Cohen???s County-Based Study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About