[ RadSafe ] Mr. Connell states basis for radon risk reduction "havebeen rejected by legitimate scientists for decades"

[Steven Dapra]

May 4, 2009

         The "worth-while study" is the Iowa Radon Lung Cancer 
Study.  ("Residential Radon Gas Exposure and Lung Cancer") by Field, R. 
William, et al. American Journal of Epidemiology.  151(11):1091-1102; 2000.

         R. William Field delivered a lecture titled "Environmental Factors 
in Cancer: Radon," at the President's Cancer Panel  in Charleston, SC, on 
December 4, 2008.  On page seven of his lecture, Field said the EPA 
"deserves significant credit for their tremendous leadership over the past 
20 years to reduce radon exposure on many fronts.  However, greater success 
has reportedly been impeded by the U.S. EPA's reliance on voluntary 
programs."  Continuing on page seven, Field noted that the EPA's Office of 
the Inspector General has "strongly recommended" that the EPA consider 
using its "authority, including legislation" that the EPA has under the 
1988 Indoor Radon Abatement Act "to reduce the risk posed by protracted 
radon exposure."

         Field went on to cite the precedent of legislation banning the use 
of lead paint.  He then said that because of smoking, we are "essentially 
allowing" a "bioterrorist within" to "attack over a million Americans each 
year" and he says that "radon is a 'dirty bomb' within our homes that 
attacks millions of people each year."  Field closed by saying that there 
are clear indications that mitigation of existing homes and adopting radon 
resistant new construction "can be justified on a national 
level."  (citation omitted)

         The hyperbole is patently obvious.  Can you see the mailed 
fist?  I wonder if any of Field's 2008 sentiments were extant in 2000 when 
he was conducting the Iowa study.

Steven Dapra

NOTE

         Field's lecture (with two and one-half pages of references) is 
available online in PDF.  I regret that I do not have the specific link, 
however you can go to <http://www.aarst.org/>.  Highlighted in blue you 
will see "President's Cancer Panel," and directly below that is a link to 
"Testimony - December 4, 2008."  This will take you to Field's lecture.


At 02:40 PM 5/4/09 -0700, Brennan, Mike  (DOH) wrote:
>This is a worth-while study: http://radsci1.home.mchsi.com/irlcs.pdf
>
>As for "...including referencing the EPA documents which clearly state 
>that they have never found ANY support for their position, and where the 
>EPA admits that when radon goes up, cancer rates go down.", I would be 
>willing to bet a fair sum that the EPA Radiation and Indoor Air people 
>would not agree with that assessment of the documents, and might well take 
>exception to it.
>
>While it is not a study, here is an article about a situation I was 
>slightly involved in: 
>http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2009/mar/08/a-silent-danger/.  The woman 
>in the article is a never-smoker, living in and from non-smoking 
>households, and working in a smoke free workplace.  She was diagnosed with 
>lung cancer.  When her home was tested for radon the levels on the main 
>floor, including in her bedroom, were around 250 pCi/l.  I am not a 
>radi-phobe, but that's a lot of radon.  I acknowledge that we do not know 
>for certain what induced her cancer, but I know what I consider to be the 
>most likely suspect.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On 
>Behalf Of William Levy
>Sent: Monday, May 04, 2009 8:21 AM
>To: radsafe at radlab.nl
>Subject: [ RadSafe ] Mr. Connell states basis for radon risk reduction 
>"havebeen rejected by legitimate scientists for decades"
>
>Radsafe list readers and radon experts
>
>I* have been a discussion recently concering radon and 226 Ra in drywall 
>on a home inspector message board and this was my comment*: ( the previous 
>posts on the thread  *I do not see yo make any reference to an EPA 
>document or published article by EPA or other accepted study source.*
>
>*Mr Connell reply :*
>
>That's because you don't follow the radon discussions and, frankly, you 
>don't know much about radon. I actually have provided several references 
>to back up what I say on this board, including referencing the EPA 
>documents which clearly state that they have never found ANY support for 
>their position, and where the EPA admits that when radon goes up, cancer 
>rates go down.

[edit]