[ RadSafe ] ODP: Residential radon and lung cancer suppression

Tue Jan 4 13:39:40 CST 2011

I can't do better than quote Wiki:

Radiation hormesis has not been accepted by either the United States 
National Research Council,[1] or the National Council on Radiation 
Protection and Measurements.[2] In addition, the United Nations Scientific 
Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) wrote in its most 
recent report:[3]

  Until the [...] uncertainties on low-dose response are resolved, the 
Committee believes that an increase in the risk of tumour induction 
proportionate to the radiation dose is consistent with developing knowledge 
and that it remains, accordingly, the most scientifically defensible 
approximation of low-dose response. However, a strictly linear dose response 
should not be expected in all circumstances.

    1.. ^ http://books.nap.edu/catalog/11340.html Health Risks from Exposure 
to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation: BEIR VII Phase 2
    2.. ^ NCRP Report No. 136 — Evaluation of the Linear-Nonthreshold 
Dose-Response Model for Ionizing Radiation
    3.. ^ UNSCEAR 2000 REPORT Vol. II: Sources and Effects of Ionizing 
Radiation: Annex G: Biological effects at low radiation doses. page 160, 
paragraph 541.
ICRP also have a similar view.

The problem with trying to identify this effect in large populations are the 
severe confounding effects and their signficant impacts on what are very 
subtle effects.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Howard" <howard.long at comcast.net>
To: "The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) MailingList" 
<radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
Cc: "The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) MailingList" 
<radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>; "BobbyScott" <BScott at lrri.org>; "George 
Sallit" <georgesallit325 at btinternet.com>; "Bernard L. Cohen" <blc at pitt.edu>; 
"RichardThompson" <rthompso at jhsph.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2011 6:07 PM
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] ODP: Residential radon and lung cancer suppression

B Cohen's massive study (3/4 of USA pop.) even more directly refutes LNT 
fears, Jerry.
LESS lung cancer deaths in counties with MORE residential radon ( up to 
4pC/cm ? - more than in 99% of homes) makes me want to ADD  radon to my 
home.

This reminds me, Jerry, as I shiver with "science predicted" proof of global 
warming (??)
of your article with Myron Pollycove (www.aapsonline.org/journal winter 2003 
v8 #4) -
Can Cancer Be Treated With Low Doses of Radiation?

Howard Long

On Jan 3, 2011, at 8:59 PM, JERRY CUTTLER <jerrycuttler at rogers.com> wrote:

>
>
>
>
>
> Happy New Year folks!
>
> EPA: 21,000 deaths a year from radon  ???  Same ~50-year-old LNT ideology, 
> year after year, from the same (radiation) protection racket.
>
> Taking action to reduce radon levels 1) costs money, 2) stigmatizes 
> properties (reducing their values) and 3) increases lung cancer incidence. 
> See again the following papers:
>
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2477713/
>
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2939692/
>
> Jerry
> jerrycuttler at rogers.com
>
>
> --- On Mon, 1/3/11, George Sallit <georgesallit325 at btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> From: George Sallit <georgesallit325 at btinternet.com>
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] ODP: Residential radon and lung cancer 
> suppression
> To: "The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) MailingList" 
> <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>, "Scott, Bobby" <BScott at lrri.org>
> Cc: "Bernard L. Cohen" <blc at pitt.edu>, "Thompson, Richard" 
> <rthompso at jhsph.edu>, "Jerry Cuttler" <jerrycuttler at rogers.com>
> Date: Monday, January 3, 2011, 9:43 PM
>
>
> Oh dear.
>
> Recent views from ICRP and others is causing people to re-think how
> collective dose is used. We have seen over the years how the concept of
> collective dose has been misused and I am afraid this could be an example 
> of
> it. The data that we have in the health physics field has been very well
> studied and from it risks to individuals from those radiation doses
> assessed. We need to use this data carefully.
>
> However, collective doses are a way of estimating total societal harm from 
> a
> particular practice/operation. Where it is necessary to compare various 
> ways
> of controlling these doses then the use of collective dose is helpful and
> gives a quantitative approach. Unfortunately collective dose has been used
> to try and 'extrapolate' the harmful effects of a collective dose to 
> impacts
> to a population. This has led people to get the small doses from say
> discharges and then multiply this very small dose by a very large 
> population
> and end up with a large collective dose. To give this number even more
> impact they then multiply these collective doses by death per unit dose 
> and
> then calculate the total number of deaths from this collective dose. This
> has led to the headlines of X deaths from reactor discharges. This is a
> distortion of  how collective dose was intended to be used.
>
> Now that is not the case here but the overall process is similar and it is
> how I believe the 21,000 estimated deaths is arrived at. So instead of 
> using
> collective doses to help compare various dose reduction options such as
> ventilation, barriers etc. we have headlines of 21,000 deaths. Whilst I am
> in favour of people  taking action to deal with high radon levels,
> especially as the treatments can be relatively inexpensive and effective I
> am not sure that we advance the argument by using such headlines.
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Cary Renquist" 
> <cary.renquist at ezag.com>
> To: "The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) MailingList"
> <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>; "Scott, Bobby" <BScott at lrri.org>
> Cc: "Bernard L. Cohen" <blc at pitt.edu>; "Thompson, Richard"
> <rthompso at jhsph.edu>; "Jerry Cuttler" <jerrycuttler at rogers.com>
> Sent: Monday, January 03, 2011 7:36 PM
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] ODP: Residential radon and lung cancer 
> suppression
>
> Perhaps somebody should tell the EPA...
> Federal Radon Summit | Radon | US EPA
> http://j.mp/fpUFKV
>
> EPA has designated January as National Radon Action Month.  Learn more 
> about
> the national effort to take action against radon.
>
> EPA: 21,000 deaths a year from radon
>
> This is National Radon Action Month, and nine federal agencies are joining
> on actions to help Americans reduce their exposure to the invisible,
> odorless and naturally occurring radiation threat. Those agencies are EPA,
> General Services Administration, and the Depts. of Agriculture, Energy,
> Health and Human Services, Defense, Housing and Urban Development, 
> Interior
> and Veterans Affairs.
>
> The Environmental Protection Agency said radon is a "serious public health
> threat" that leads to more than 21,000 deaths annually in the U.S. 
> According
> to EPA, one in 15 American homes contains high levels of radon but simple
> actions can be taken to monitor the risk and fix the problem if there is
> one.
>
> ---
> Cary Renquist
> cary.renquist at ezag.com
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
> [mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Dobrzynski 
> Ludwik
> Sent: Monday, 27 December 2010 01:24
> To: Scott, Bobby; radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu
> Cc: Bernard L. Cohen; Thompson, Richard; Jerry Cuttler
> Subject: [ RadSafe ] ODP: Residential radon and lung cancer suppression
>
> Dear Bobby,
> Thanks for this mail. We have submitted more than 6 months ago a paper on
> radon problem to Health Physics. It seems that after some minor 
> corrections
> the paper will be finally published. In short, it shows that basing on
> present data there is no reason to apply any linear dose-effect 
> relationship
> up to the radon concentration 150 Bq/m3.
> With the best regards,
> Ludwik
> ________________________________
>
> Od: Scott, Bobby [mailto:BScott at lrri.org]
> Wysłano: N 2010-12-26 22:11
> Do: radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu
> DW: Thompson, Richard; Bernard L. Cohen; Jerry Cuttler; Dobrzynski Ludwik
> Temat: Residential radon and lung cancer suppression
>
> Hi all:
>
> I thought some of you may like to know about the following paper:
>
> Thompson RE. Epidemiological evidence for possible radiation hormesis from
> radon exposure: A case-control study conducted in Worcester, MA.
> Dose-Response (prepress version).
>
> The paper by Dr. Richard Thompson of Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of
> Public Health relates to a case-control study of lung cancer and 
> residential
> radon exposure conducted in Worcester County, Massachusetts. Lung cancer
> risk (inferred from odds ratio) was estimated using different conditional
> logistic regression models that controlled for demographic, smoking, and
> occupational exposure covariates. An initial analysis using lowess 
> smoothing
> of the response variable revealed a non-linear hormetic-type association
> between the log odds of lung cancer and radon exposure in the home. 
> Results
> from application of several models that allow for a hormetic-type dose
> response implicated a possible > 2-fold increase in lung cancer risk for
> residing in a radon-free home as compared to the current level of radon 
> for
> up to 250 Bq/cubic meter. Depending on the model used, the increase in 
> lung
> cancer risk with radon elimination could be > 3 fold.  Radon levels
> significantly > 250 Bq/cubic meter were implicated as increasing lung 
> cancer
> risk.  Smoking was strongly associated with lung cancer. Only 15 out of 
> 200
> lung cancer cases in the study were never smokers.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Bobby R. Scott
> Senior Scientist
> Lovelace Respiratory Research Institute
> 2425 Ridgecrest Drive SE
> Albuquerque, NM 87108 USA
> _______________________________________________
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 