[ RadSafe ] Re: Differences in Background radiation anddisease incidence

[stewart farber]

Dear Colleagues,

I would like to suggest what I believe is a substantial defect in the 
National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council,  Commission on Life 
Sciences 1988 Report on the effects of radon on health [  "Health Risks of 
Radon and Other Internally Deposited Alpha-Emitters: BEIR IV (1988)" ] which 
has been presented as contradicting so strongly the ecological studies of 
Dr. Cohen which have suggested a strong inverse relationship between 
elevated radon in air and lung cancer.

After the BEIR-IV report was issued, I attended a talk at a HPS meeting 
around 1989-90 by Dr. William Ellet, who as Project Director on the National 
Research Council Staff, board on Radiation Effects Research, coordinated the 
BEIR-IV report preparation.

At the conclusion of his dinner talk to a large audience, Dr. Ellet 
immediately lit up a cigarette before he was able to entertain questions and 
he smoked very heavily during the question and answer period, lighting up 
several cigarettes [relevance to follow].

My question to him from the floor was related to whether the NAS committee, 
which reviewed the lung cancer rates in uranium miners and other underground 
miner cohorts, in its report on radon and lung cancer took into account the 
growing and substantial evidence of the effects of second-hand smoke on lung 
cancer rates?  My question concerned the fact that many miners who were 
classified as "non-smokers" would have had regular exposure to second-hand 
smoke from fellow miners during their breaks over their working lives,  and 
that it was very possible a good fraction of the lung cancers attributed 
among non-smokers to radon exposure was in fact due to their unavoidable 
exposure to second-hand smoke. This factor would clearly reduce the claimed 
effects of radon on excess lung cancer rates among "non-smoking" miners.

Also the exposure of smokers to the established effects of smoking on lung 
cancer rates would have been increased by additional exposure to second hand 
smoke [i.e.: smokers should have actually been properly classified as 
"higher packs per day" smokers if second hand smoke were properly 
considered] so lung cancers among "smokers" in the BEIR-IV study cohorts for 
any level of radon exposure would have been reduced, if smoking were 
properly adjusted for second hand smoke.

When I posed the above question/comment to Dr. Ellet about whether second 
hand smoke could reduce the effects of radon on lung cancer for both smokers 
and especially non-smokers, he quite simply exploded in anger at my 
suggestion. His reply if memory serves me right was:

 "If you think you're so damn smart, why don't you analyze what effect 
second-hand smoke would have on reducing lung cancer rates."

Has anyone ever done the type of analysis suggested by my question to Dr. 
Ellet?? If not, it should be done since it would "undermine" so to speak 
some of the claims that radon is as large a factor in lung cancer rates as 
some claim,  and by reducing the "signal" of excess lung cancer rates for 
uranium and other underground miners broaden the confidence intervals for 
excess lung cancer rates for any given level of supposed radon exposure to 
miners.

Stewart Farber, MS Public Health
Farber Technical Services
1285 Wood Ave.
Bridgeport, CT 06604
[203] 441-8433 [office]
[203] 522-2817 [cell]
email: radproject at sbcglobal.net
          radproject at aol.com

==================================================



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Otto Raabe" <ograabe at ucdavis.edu>
To: "Bernard L. Cohen" <blc+ at pitt.edu>
Cc: "'RADSAFE'" <radsafe at radlab.nl>
Sent: Monday, February 12, 2007 12:01 PM
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Re: Differences in Background radiation anddisease 
incidence


> At 08:28 AM 2/12/2007, Bernard L. Cohen wrote:
>>          ---The problem is that the "powers that be" refuse to consider 
>> such evidence. My radon study does what you say with tremendous 
>> statistical accuracy, and it treats over 500 potential confounding 
>> factors, and does a lot of other things with no statistical uncertainty, 
>> but it is ignored. They refuse to even consider an ecological study and 
>> they ignore all the evidence I have presented.
>>>**********************************
>
> February 12, 2007
>
> I believe that Prof. Cohen's studies provide the most reliable available 
> information about radon risk to the general public because they are based 
> on appropriate dosimetry. In his studies he used overall average 
> radon-in-home measurements in each U.S. County as a surrogate for relative 
> lifetime average alpha radiation dose rate to the respiratory tract for 
> people living in each County. It is the LIFETIME average alpha radiation 
> dose rate to the lung that needs to be considered in estimating the risk 
> from radon in homes.
>
> In contrast, the case-control studies of indoor radon such as are 
> presented in BEIR VI (e.g. Figure G-1, page 377) use selected isolated 
> measurements of radon concentration in each individual's home for each 
> case or control and there is no way that these measurements can properly 
> represent the LIFETIME average alpha radiation dose rate to the lung of 
> any individual in contrast to other selected individuals. In addition, the 
> resulting widely variable results are used to assign a risk relative to 
> ZERO lifetime alpha radiation dose to the lung even though there is not 
> one single person in the study whose lifetime dose is zero. Then, with 
> these totally imprecise surrogate estimates of lung dose for specific 
> individuals, a regression analysis is performed fitting these imprecise 
> data to a log-linear (in the case of Figure G-1) or linear function 
> beginning at zero dose. I think the results of these types of studies are 
> inherently unreliable.
>
> Otto
>
>
> **********************************************
> Prof. Otto G. Raabe, Ph.D., CHP



-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.411 / Virus Database: 268.17.37/682 - Release Date: 2/12/2007