[ RadSafe ] Radon consensus

[Earley, Jack N]

Otto's responses are the clearest, most objective discussion since Bernard Cohen's that I have ever seen on this topic. Hormesis studies w/ paramecia were part of the U.S. Navy training back in the 70s; I suspect that they aren't today. Thanks Otto.


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.


> Date: Fri, 14 May 2010 08:55:35 -0700
> From: "Otto G. Raabe" <ograabe at ucdavis.edu>
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Radon consensus question
> To: "Brennan, Mike  (DOH)" <Mike.Brennan at DOH.WA.GOV>,
> 	radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu
> Message-ID: <20100514162258.3B15D400B7CF at agni.phys.iit.edu>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
> 
> At 02:27 PM 5/13/2010, you wrote:
> >I recognize there are people on Radsafe that do not agree with the EPA
> >Action Level of 4 pCi/l of radon in air, and I respect that.  I am a
> >little curious about how high the levels have to be before there is
> >consensus that something should be done.
> ********************************
> May 14, 2010
> 
> An "action level" of 8 pCi/L in homes would not be unreasonable.
> 
> A careful case control study of radon in homes shows that lung cancer
> adjusted odds ratio (relative risk) goes DOWN markedly as radon
> concentration goes UP from 25 Bq/m3 to 250 Bq/m3. Only for radon
> concentrations well above 250 Bq/m3 does the risk begin to rise (R.E.
> Thompson, D.F. Nelson, J.H. Popkin, Z. Popkin, "Case-Control Study of
> Lung Cancer Risk from Residential Radon Exposure in Worcester County,
> Massachusetts, Health Physics 94: 228-241, March 2008).
> 
> In addition, the downward slope in risk that was observed in this
> newer study seems to overlay almost perfectly the lung cancer
> mortality reduction slope shown by Bernard Cohen in his 1995 Health
> Physics paper (B.L. Cohen, "Test of the Linear-No Threshold Theory of
> Radiation Carcinogenesis for Inhaled Radon Decay Products". Health
> Physics 68. 157-174, 1995).
> 
> The authors of the newer paper explain quite well the reasons that
> caused previous case-control studies to obscure this phenomenon.
> 
> My own studies of internal emitters suggest that a lifetime lung dose
> less than 20 Sv is unlikely to result in a significant lifetime risk
> of lung cancer induction (O.G. Raabe, Concerning the Health Effects
> of Internally Deposited Radionuclides, Health Physics 98: 515-536,
> 2010). Of course, there is the probable synergistic effect of
> cigarette smoking that needs to be considered at higher (but not
> lower) radon levels.
> 
> Calculating  imaginary lung cancer deaths as EPA apparently does for
> exposures below 4 pCi/L is shear nonsense!
> 
> Most homes in Colorado are well above 4 pCi/L and Colorado has one of
> the lowest lung cancer rates of all of the 50 States.
> 
> Otto
> 
> **********************************************
> Prof. Otto G. Raabe, Ph.D., CHP
> Center for Health & the Environment
> University of California
> One Shields Avenue
> Davis, CA 95616
> E-Mail: ograabe at ucdavis.edu
> Phone: (530) 752-7754   FAX: (530) 758-6140
> ***********************************************
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 7
> Date: Fri, 14 May 2010 09:39:22 -0700
> From: "Otto G. Raabe" <ograabe at ucdavis.edu>
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Radon consensus question
> To: Dan W McCarn <hotgreenchile at gmail.com>,	"'Brennan, Mike  \(DOH\)'"
> 	<Mike.Brennan at DOH.WA.GOV>
> Cc: radsafe at agni.phys.iit.edu
> Message-ID: <20100514163645.43698400B7CF at agni.phys.iit.edu>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
> 
> At 04:26 PM 5/13/2010, Dan W McCarn wrote:
> >Given that the technology exists to easily lower the concentration
> >significantly (active ventilation, etc.) at a moderate cost; then I think
> >the ALARA principle is applicable.
> ******************
> ALARA is implicitly based on a linear dose-response risk model that
> does not apply to protracted low dose-rate exposures.
> 
> Otto
> 
> **********************************************
> Prof. Otto G. Raabe, Ph.D., CHP
> Center for Health & the Environment
> University of California
> One Shields Avenue
> Davis, CA 95616
> E-Mail: ograabe at ucdavis.edu
> Phone: (530) 752-7754   FAX: (530) 758-6140
> ***********************************************
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> RadSafe mailing list
> RadSafe at health.phys.iit.edu
> http://health.phys.iit.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/radsafe
> 
> 
> End of RadSafe Digest, Vol 301, Issue 1
> ***************************************