Reponse

Extract

Cohen responds to perceived criticisms of his ecologic study of radon and lung cancer in my recent editorial ( 1 ) . Careful reading of the editorial shows, however, that emphasis is placed on the policy implications of his findings in light of the new meta-analysis and not on limitations of his ecologic study itself. With Stidley, I have previously reviewed Cohen'ss ongoing work as well as other ecologic studies ( 2 ) . The editorial restates the well-known limitations of the ecologic method; Cohen acknowledges the problem of the “ ecologic fallacy” in interpreting his own findings.

In his letter, Cohen again asserts that the findings of his ecologic study are inconsistent with “ linear-no threshold theory.” The findings are also inconsistent, however, with the bulk of the epidemiologic data from observations of individuals, including the studies of miners exposed at lower doses and the case-control studies summarized in the new meta-analysis reported by Lubin and Boice ( 3 ) .