Document XzqxY5XaEKJgzrJdMzrwM1qeg

ENVIRONMENT From the Editor: Dr. J. P. Lodge, Jr. 385 Broadway Boulder. Colorado 80303. U.S.A. An International Journal 12 February 1981 Dr. R. D. Snee Consultant Supervisor Applied Statistics Group E.X. du Pont de Nemours & Company Wilmington, Delaware 19898 Dear Dr. Snee: X have now heard from two referees concerning your paper, "Models for the Relationship...." Their comments are attached, together with a manuscript marked by one of the referees. As you can see, the reaction toward this paper was uniformly negative. If I am to keep any faith with my reviewers, I am bound to reject it in its present form. However, it seems to me that these reviewers have given sufficient detail of the matters that bother them to give you considerable guidance in producing a paper, at some later date, that would be fully acceptable. I really sense that both reviewers would like to see this matter published, but simply feel that you have not proved your point. I am thus rejecting the present manuscript, but strongly encouraging a later submission that meets these criticisms. JPL:jt Enel. Published by PERGAMON PRESS TEH 0470526 New York Oxford Toronto * Sydney Paris Frankfurt J REFEREE FORM ATMOSPHERIC ENVIRONMENT TITLE OF PAPER: ..,.JBMfi.l8..ios..lfte.IteJ*1&<roflft*B.^^ AUTHORS):...... ....................... ................ t,?.*...%ee MS. No ...132Q-J,., You are invited to referee the enclosed paper, if you are able to do this please return the enclosed card. If you cannot report within ten days, please return the paper without delay. REFEREE'S REPORT It will be of great assistance to the Editors if the Referee will answer the following questions: 1. Should the paper be accepted for publication ?, ..Alfa......................................................................................... If the paper is scientifically unsound or does not contain any material which is of sufficient interest and originality to merit publication, then the paper will normally be rejected. If the referee is of the opinion that the paper fallsjwithlneither of these categories-would heuplease state his reasonsfor this opinion. .... ........................u.nu*,.?. (s .....*. 0*..... ??.. m., ......a.yXte*rurn.....mz.*s!&u*y... . .4/^.0,../.f..1.r. ../?&&&!&.,. ./**ff%*w' If the answer to Question 1 is "Yes", then would the referee please indicate: *s 2. Are there any errors?....... <f.. ' r2>/toa -e fretf/SAM YfOV)- ' 3. Are there any omissions? ..................... .................... ................... ......................... ........ ............. ....... 4. Are anwsections obscure and what additions ot alterations would remove the obscurity? tZEZEtt.. .............. ................................... 5. Could any sections be omitted or shortened ? 6. Is the abstract adequate?. 7. is the title appropriate? 8. Are all the illustrations/tables necessary, clear and suitably captioned ?., 9. Have you any other comments?........................... ........................... .................................. 0470527 DUP050083348 N42473.01 a t mo s p h e r ic e n v ir o n me n t REFEREE'S REPORT MS, No. ...-ISlZEbL...... (Th sheet to be used for rep.le.to <,ue.on. 1-10 If there.. I,,,Mffie.en. #paoa _ _ ^; 1 on the Referee Form.) tOA,/e ,f SS t&vfZsa/Ar j&a tff#/ }/u ^//c a//-- //,</ /e*D c/A Axejn. ^onJL. faL, /a A A A* st A 4 j T/^o -* Aody 4-^-4// aA fiTtJfL UKe.4. <H*t/ AoiS UKMl A Oaet/A AdLurw Kf>a-Pt Ay AA au)A/t&<u A AyA A*i-a-ta /A, dytnt4*t'<^ ^ /*t>cA A** & *^Ur/fAfe \Aopf Urt AA 4A Ac/y^ &Alc A^g A IO&-C*/*ue jP4djCs/tf,<^y A> AAe JAxtajAfVf C&tf'Ad ***/ AA Ac pU /t/im&o-. JZ~ yAopt/ PZu^A&t- 4* fr4<A/b/ J&L jUyiXmA yA 0/4 A Acuae A 4 A/`$eaj` /A fab> As m (w/y AsSeJ jAwayAt. /?f OS/Arf 4*0 sA^t/a* Jux//s *A jA&ty/A *tl jeyuf/JiA*)4c#i A*<ALci a x > Ajtpe&tu X 0 cc<y>ayC**J&*7Zh S/H> /detfhe /S d^J, OA'k ***- Ay A A tePt(X*/ce*y A4i a^atuuyy Tuj/eddda fS ad*edJn fCUf&H. db add*- W*uM hoe hdsf/iy fht hdlT'C jLfa T Alt iXOHfA S4L /AOdx. AidA;, AaA & a^ :Sf>*/uie- bit tuddbx mA) s&nu ysj^td/ffx. &dtr u*H shfy fpew (ttyhn (j -Aw u l (f> T)) hd fHvdfhh f&so S daoMo temcdtxxxr*t*> * Aouy de &* *"* TEH 0470528 DUP050083349 r REFEREE FORM ,J ATMOSPHERIC ENVIRONMENT MS. No ...lW~k......... TITLE OF PAPER: ....^dels..fat.Jt^.,Belati(wahtp,.BjeWjeen. jXp.Q4..X)?M..m4..MS,.liead"....... AUTHOR(S): ........................................ .SjXdS............................. .................................... You are invited to referee the enclosed paper. If you are able to do this please return the enclosed card. If you cannot report within ten days, please return the paper without delay. REFEREE'S REPORT It will be of. great assistance to the Editors if the Referee will answer the following questions: 1. Should the paper be accented for publication? ............... .Ifo...................... ............... ..... ................. .................. If the paper is scientifically unsound or does not contain any material which is of sufficient interest and originality to merit publication, then the paper will normally be rejected. If the referee is of the opinion that the paper falls within either of these categories would he please state his reasons for this opinion. AlthP!^.,thei>gBnerai,,subject of_ models for linking pollutant expos'ures` and `Hec'is"r8"ljatare.ei'ing''arid'....... ...... do-68"not"appiB^"td`qxial'ify"aB",fflaking"an"origTnal-"contri:bu'ti*oriy...... ....... The -author- misrepresents . -the- requirements.. and. .bo.undary. .0 onditione.... . for..use.,.of.i one,.class...of, models...flog-log ) , and fails to make a............ convincing case for the alternate model he proposes. Tfte'fails "'t'o...... provide'"thB,'-data,'#lii'ch"a"rgad'er"neBd:s"i;o'"3,udge,'iTxs,-assrerti"one........ ....... If the answer to Question 1 is "Yes", then would the referee please indicate: 2. Are there any errors?...1 J$.9.dU9.tA<?^ n?il&er predict .......... nor asstime that at zero air lead, there would he zero blood lead. The *'autKsr,'siYdm'd"r6Tead"it-;................ .............. ..... ................................ ............ .............................. 3. Are there any omissions? ................................ --............................ ............... .................................... 4. Are any sections obscure and what additions or alterations would remove the obscurity? ____ _______...______ 5. Could any sections be omitted or shortened? 6. Is the abstract adequate?. 7. Is the title appropriate ? 8. Are all the illustrations/tables necessary, clear and suitably captioned?............ .............. . The Figures are not numbered. It seemB extraordinary that with the'*haSie "B'e'fs'b'f " d'atar''tK'"f'elStiye"i)'d8'i`tIb`fiS"'Of'"the"Curvesr"forr-the" 9 Have you any other comments? ...,.fl.YS...dif.f63r.0.t,.^r.9.WPS..W9.Ul.4...??.?....diff.rent... for the two different models. 10. Are there any aspects on which you consider another opinion should be sought?..... . TEH 0470529 ,mi . * am ' .vi '* ' ' :V- DUP050083350 AtMOSPHERIC ENVIRONMENT REFEREE'S REPORT MS. No. -1^20-L (Thi# sheet to be used for replies to questions 1-10 if there is insuffiotent space on the Referee Form.) Unfortunately, Azar's papers, of which Snee was a coauthor are not available to me, but given the citations, they are not likely to be available to other readers of "Atmospheric Environment" either. I have located Goldsmith and Hexter, and note that their contri bution seems to have been that they identified a model upon the basis of which experimental and epidemiological data appeared to be convergent, Snee chooses two epidemiological studies, despite the availability of several sets of both types of studies, My recollection of the Azar reports is that they are quite appropriate for one input to model building, but to qualify as an original contribution in 1980, it would seem that at a minimum both types of study should be included. If there was any quantitative basis for assuming that the five groups did indeed have food and w&ater exposures justifying the hugh'-i range of "B" values (0.44-6.26), one could go along with the author's argument, but none is available. Contrasting this range with the range of "a" values given under Eq (1) leaves one with the impression that the log-log relationship is mgre plausible than the Author's proposed alternative, but lacking/clear definition of what a six coefficient! model was. The argument that oral lead ingestion was a hidden variable responsible for the proposed air- lead, to blood-lead association was tested by collecting fecal lead data in the so-called "Seven City" study, and the data did not support it. To repeat the same sort of argument, with no data to support it hardly merits publication. To present figures for predictions without any data on what was observed is simply not scientific. That with the amount of extrapolation used there are differences between curves at low than at high levels is not so remarkable as that the relative height of the blood lead curves in the range of measured air lead exposure differs (i.e. comparing LA office and Starke, and the two cab company groups). # In no place does the author discuss the crucial importance of particle size of inhaled lead; certainly it would be relevant in making comparisons between the Azar and Williams data, TEH 0470530 DUP050083351