[ RadSafe ] Radon, hormesis, and fear mongering

[Earley, Jack N]

My distinction is between those things controllable by the individual (vehicle condition or driving habits and smoking) and those that are not (weather and outdoor radon levels). Although realistically, adults generally can also choose to not live with smokers or can move away from high-radon areas or mitigate the concentrations in their homes, or can move away from areas immediately downwind of sites such as Hanford, if they feel it's detrimental. Also notable are the more recent studies of those moving back in proximity to Chernobyl.

As I recall from the uranium miners reports (and my memory may be faulty), hormesis was observed in non-smokers; detriment was observed in smokers. I also tend to accept the detailed and objective analyses of Cohen and Luckey over those attempting to justify a prejudice. I also recognize that the numbers are all relative to the observer; also, that if we expect it to be personally detrimental, it's more likely to be than if we don't.


Jack Earley
Sr. Health Physicist

Don't Say It - WRITE IT!
The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to whom it is addressed and may contain proprietary, business-confidential, and/or privileged material. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, you are hereby notified that any use, review, retransmission, dissemination, distribution, reproduction, or any action taken in reliance upon this message is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender and may not necessarily reflect the views of the company.



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brennan, Mike (DOH) [mailto:Mike.Brennan at DOH.WA.GOV]
> Sent: Friday, July 02, 2010 9:22 AM
> To: Earley, Jack N; radsafe at agni.phys.iit.edu
> Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] RadSafe Digest, Vol 338, Issue 1
> 
> Hi, Jack.
> 
> I understand your position, and I think that there are some in the radon
> community who oversell the risks, believing that getting people to take
> action justifies panicking them (a belief I do not share).  I have,
> however, given a fair amount of thought to the smoking/radon connection,
> and I while I don't have huge confidence in the exact percentages and
> numbers, I can agree with the sense of the statement.
> 
> To use your analogy, I think we can all agree that operator error
> (excessive speed, distracted or impaired driving, etc.) is the main
> factor in many (most?) accidents.  However, I don't think that this
> would be a sound reason for saying, "So it doesn't matter if your tires
> are bald or your windshield wipers work; it's the driver who causes
> accidents."
> 
> I would submit that there are a fair number of times when the difference
> between an accident happening or being narrowly avoided is the state of
> vehicle's repair.  This is true whether the driver is a slightly drunk
> teenage boy taking corners too fast or, say, you or me.  I would even go
> so far as to say that the worse the tires are, the more likely an
> accident is across all driver conditions, with a greater than additive
> increase in risk as both the driver and tires get worse.  This is kind
> of what is seen in the relationship between smoking and radon.
> 
> I think that if people are concerned about radon the first thing they
> should do is stop smoking.  If they already don't smoke; great!  Testing
> for radon and mitigating if it is elevated is a good next step.
> 
> And they should check the tread on their tires.
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
> [mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Earley, Jack N
> Sent: Monday, June 28, 2010 7:54 AM
> To: radsafe at agni.phys.iit.edu
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] RadSafe Digest, Vol 338, Issue 1
> 
> Still incredible to me:
> 
> "About 60 per cent of radon-related deaths occur in smokers, 30 per cent
> among former smokers and 10 per cent among people who never smoked,
> estimates the Quebec Department of Health and Social Services. "Like
> most everybody, I was surrounded by smokers in my childhood," Marie
> Bedard told The Gazette. "But since I'm allergic to smoke, I always kept
> my distance."
> 
> Ninety percent of the fatalities are related to smoking, but they still
> focus on the radon. It's like blaming wrecks on the weather instead of
> on the excessive speed or lack of control by the people who were driving
> at the time (how many times have you read "the weather was responsible
> for x number of traffic fatalities"?). You'd think that after this many
> years, I'd be used to the stupidity. I think there's a definition of
> insanity I should be reviewing-I must be expecting a different outcome
> from the same old programs people keep running.
> 
> 
> Jack Earley
> Sr. Health Physicist
> 
> Don't Say It - WRITE IT!
> The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to
> whom it is addressed and may contain proprietary, business-confidential,
> and/or privileged material. If you are not the intended recipient of
> this message, you are hereby notified that any use, review,
> retransmission, dissemination, distribution, reproduction, or any action
> taken in reliance upon this message is prohibited. If you received this
> in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any
> computer. Any views expressed in this message are those of the
> individual sender and may not necessarily reflect the views of the
> company.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
> 
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
> visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu