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