[ RadSafe ] Annual dose from Nature/Background/Man-made sources
John R Johnson
idias at interchange.ubc.ca
Wed Aug 1 14:19:08 CDT 2007
Kai
I think you can find everything known before1990 about radon and animal
studies in Part 2 of "Indoor Radon and Lung Cancer: Reality or Myth?"
Printed by Battelle Press. It is a Hanford Symposium (Edited by F. T.
Cross).
The session called "Animal Studies and Exposure Systems" has 5 papers (pages
659-731) on the subject.
John
***************
John R Johnson, PhD
CEO, IDIAS, Inc.
Vancouver, B. C.
Canada
(604) 222-9840
idias at interchange.ubc.ca
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kai Kaletsch" <eic at shaw.ca>
To: <Rainer.Facius at dlr.de>; <radsafe at radlab.nl>
Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2007 11:51 AM
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Annual dose from Nature/Background/Man-made sources
> Rainer,
>
> there are 2 ways to have high radon levels in a building:
>
> 1) let lots of radon into the building (build on fractured soil, build in
> a high radium area...). And
> 2) Keep the radon that you have inside the building (keep doors and
> windows closed).
>
> The second mechanism presents some obvious problems for case control
> studies and I'm not sure they have been addressed.
>
> For example: If your house has poor ventilation, you also increase the
> level of other indoor air pollutants, as well as radon. So, if you find an
> association between radon levels and cancer, it could be due to these
> other pollutants.
>
> But, even if we take the case control studies at face value, they are easy
> to reconcile with Cohen's results, if we say dose is not the only relevant
> measure.
>
> I'd like to see some animal studies looking at the effects of timing and
> rate of radon exposure.
>
> Regards,
> Kai
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <Rainer.Facius at dlr.de>
> To: <eic at shaw.ca>; <radsafe at radlab.nl>
> Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2007 11:37 AM
> Subject: AW: [ RadSafe ] Annual dose from Nature/Background/Man-made
> sources
>
>
> Kai,
>
> thank you for your clarification.
>
> I concur with your statements and I tried to select my wording so that it
> did not imply beneficial effects hiding behind these Cohen data (although
> they very well might). On the other hand, they demonstrate that there is
> no rational reason either to suspect detrimental effects, and even worse,
> to spend money to reduce such exposure levels. Regarding the findings from
> case control studies, I suspect that they often suffer from some kind of
> 'selection' bias - although I know the textbook assertions that (if
> properly! done) cohort and case control studies should yield the same
> results. So far I have received no comprehensible answers to my several
> questions to experts why very often case control studies find 'positive'
> associations with some putative toxin where cohort studies don't.
>
> Regarding the importance of dose rate studies, my feeling is that we just
> have scratched the surface of the phenomena and may have yet to learn how
> to pose the proper - experimentally determinable - questions. This
> includes of cause the proper allowing for the varying physiological state
> of the 'target'.
>
> Kind regards, Rainer
>
> Dr. Rainer Facius
> German Aerospace Center
> Institute of Aerospace Medicine
> Linder Hoehe
> 51147 Koeln
> GERMANY
> Voice: +49 2203 601 3147 or 3150
> FAX: +49 2203 61970
>
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Kai Kaletsch [mailto:eic at shaw.ca]
> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 1. August 2007 18:19
> An: Facius, Rainer; radsafe at radlab.nl
> Betreff: Re: [ RadSafe ] Annual dose from Nature/Background/Man-made
> sources
>
> Hi Rainer,
>
> I agree that all attempts at using confounders to explain away the health
> benefits of living in a high radon area have failed. However, this does
> NOT imply that living in a high radon house has health benefits.
>
> It could be that visiting your neighbor once a month, who has very high
> radon levels, provides the protective effect to you. Your neighbor on the
> other hand, who is exposed 24/7, would not get any benefit (or maybe even
> a slight increase in cancer risk). Overall, the area would still show a
> net reduction in cancers. [...and it would also produce the results that
> the case control studies claim to show.]
>
> Once you accept that LNT is not an accurate description of radiation
> effects, you also have to accept that dose is not a relevant quantity. You
> showed a graph a while ago relating health effects to dose rate, rather
> than dose. I think this is on the right track.
>
> It may also be that the timing of the exposure is relevant. I think I'm
> supposed to exercise 3 times a week for about an hour each. If someone
> were to exercise 7 days a week 16 hours each, they would probably do some
> damage.
>
> Regards,
> Kai
>
> Kai Kaletsch
> Environmental Instruments Canada Inc.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <Rainer.Facius at dlr.de>
> To: <Peter.Vernig at va.gov>; <idias at interchange.ubc.ca>;
> <jdaitken at sugar-land.oilfield.slb.com>; <Mike.Brennan at DOH.WA.GOV>;
> <radsafe at radlab.nl>
> Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2007 1:22 AM
> Subject: AW: [ RadSafe ] Annual dose from Nature/Background/Man-made
> sources
>
>
> "... a few of us, unfortunately have a very high [radon] exposure if we
> live in a problem house ..."
>
> Peter:
>
> Why do you call the 'few of us' unfortunate if indeed the fact of being
> exposed to higher levels of domestic radon has incontrovertibly been shown
> to be associated with significantly reduced lung cancer mortality - in
> line with most other studies, which have investigated the association of
> low dose and dose rate exposure to ionizing radiation with lung cancer?
> Proposed explanations of the radon findings by means of confounders abound
> but I have seen none published which was amenable to a quantitative
> analysis and which could be upheld in the light of a subsequent
> quantitative re-analysis by Bernard Cohen.
>
> Regards, Rainer
>
> BTW: Notwithstanding my many recurrent failures, I endeavour to adhere to
> your admonition transmitted from Paul of Tarsus :-)
>
> Dr. Rainer Facius
> German Aerospace Center
> Institute of Aerospace Medicine
> Linder Hoehe
> 51147 Koeln
> GERMANY
> Voice: +49 2203 601 3147 or 3150
> FAX: +49 2203 61970
>
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] Im
> Auftrag von Vernig, Peter G.
> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 1. August 2007 00:14
> An: John R Johnson; Doug Aitken; Brennan, Mike (DOH); radsafe at radlab.nl
> Betreff: RE: [ RadSafe ] Annual dose from Nature/Background/Man-made
> sources
>
> I agree too, one can use NCRP Report 94 which is natural background and
> has a rounded total of 300 mrem/y.
>
> But it includes Radon which I also don't like because presumably most of
> us have a pretty small exposure if we live in houses that do not have a
> significant radon exposure and a few of us, unfortunately have a very high
> exposure if we live in a problem house and that all is rounded to 200
> mrem.
> Although Radon in natural.
>
>
>
> Any opinions in this e-mail are solely those of the author, and are not
> represented as those of the VA Eastern Colorado HCS, the Dept. of Veterans
> Affairs, or the US Government.
>
> Peter G. Vernig, Radiation Safety Officer, MS-115, VA Eastern Colorado
> Health Care System, 1055 Clermont St. Denver, CO 80220,
> peter.vernig at va.gov, Phone= 303.399.8020 x2447; Fax = 303.393.5026,
> alternate fax, 303.393.5248
>
> "...whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is lovely, whatever is
> admirable, if anything is found to be excellent or praiseworthy, let your
> mind dwell on these things."
>
> Paul of Tarsus
> -----Original Message-----
> From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On
> Behalf Of John R Johnson
> Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2007 3:51 PM
> To: Doug Aitken; Brennan, Mike (DOH); radsafe at radlab.nl
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Annual dose from Nature/Background/Man-made
> sources
>
> Doug an Mike
>
> I agree that medical exposures are not background. Isn't that why UNSCEAR
> (http://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/publications/1988.html) has two
> annexes?
>
> John
> ***************
> John R Johnson, PhD
> CEO, IDIAS, Inc.
> Vancouver, B. C.
> Canada
> (604) 222-9840
> idias at interchange.ubc.ca
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Doug Aitken" <jdaitken at sugar-land.oilfield.slb.com>
> To: "Brennan, Mike (DOH)" <Mike.Brennan at DOH.WA.GOV>; <radsafe at radlab.nl>
> Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2007 1:58 PM
> Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Annual dose from Nature/Background/Man-made
> sources
>
>
>> At 03:37 PM 7/31/2007, Brennan, Mike (DOH) wrote:
>>>While I was never a fan of the old pie chart, I am less a fan of the
> new
>>>one and the message sent by changing it.
>>>
>>>I don't believe that medical exposure should be included in chart
>>>background or average exposure. No own receives an "average" medical
>>>exposure: they either receive a medical exposure or they do not. If
> you
>>>have 100 people and 10 of them receive medical exposures of 1,000 mR
>>>each, their exposure in no way affects the other 90 people. If those
>>>ten get 10,000 mR each, it STILL doesn't effect the other. Changing
> the
>>>number of people in the population changes the average, but doesn't
>>>change the effect on the people receiving exposure, or those not.
>>
>> I have to agree with this!
>>
>> There is a great difference between (1) what you can avoid
> (occupational
>> doses for radiation workers, medical doses for everyone - which should
> all
>> be judged/justified on a risk-benefit basis) and (2) those you cannot
>> avoid (natural, fallout, etc).
>>
>> Of course, you "can" minimize the second category by moving your place
> of
>> residence..... (if you see any benefit in this <G>)
>>
>> Regards
>> Doug
>>
>>
>>
>> Doug Aitken Cell Phone 713 562-8585
>> QHSE Advisor
>> D&M Operations Support
>> Schlumberger Technology Corporation
>> _______________________________________________
>> You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
>>
>> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and
> understood
>> the RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
>> http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html
>>
>> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
>> visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/
>
> _______________________________________________
> You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
>
> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood
> the RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
> http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html
>
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
> visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/
> _______________________________________________
> You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
>
> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood
> the RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
> http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html
>
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
> visit:
> http://radlab.nl/radsafe/
> _______________________________________________
> You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
>
> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood
> the RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
> http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html
>
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
> visit:
> http://radlab.nl/radsafe/
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
>
> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood
> the RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
> http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html
>
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
> visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/
More information about the RadSafe
mailing list