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

Brian Rees brees at lanl.gov
Tue May 5 10:09:26 CDT 2009

Well, I'd have to agree with Dr. Field, the discussion of radon is a 
terror instrument, not a true health threat for the vast majority of 
the population, just like an RDD....

Brian Rees

At 08:06 PM 5/4/2009, you wrote:
>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
>         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.
>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: 
>For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other 
>settings visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/

More information about the RadSafe mailing list