[ RadSafe ] Cohen's radon results and LNT

Sat Oct 1 02:47:23 CDT 2011

Mike,
I am not enough of a statistician to give a considered opinion. And I have only
looked at this paper superficially.

One can see that Field et al have tried to control for numerous possible
confounders, so the intention was good, but I cannot understand that they end
up with controls that have a vastly smaller smoking history and also much
better previous lung health. I am very sceptical that such factors can be
corrected reliably, despite what statisticians may claim. Surely a closer match
should have been possible?

Female lung cancer rates were possibly unsettled at the time of the survey.
There was a very significant increase between the 1970s and the 1980/90s,
US-wide. Iowa??
Then the relatively small number of subjects......Why females? One probably
hoped to get a better dosimetry, but it is still full of assumptions. The
female lung cancer rate is much lower than the male rate, which happened to
vary little in the said periods. If radon is suspected as a multiplicative
modulator of LC, the effect on males would be larger.
Call me a sceptic.

chris.hofmeyr at webmail.co.za

On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 10:43:40 -0700 "Brennan, Mike  (DOH)"
<Mike.Brennan at DOH.WA.GOV> wrote

> Hi, Chris.
> 
> I would be interested on your take on the Iowa Radon Lung Cancer Study,
> which to me seems to have better power because it controlled for more
> confounding factors.  http://radsci1.home.mchsi.com/irlcs.pdf
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
> [mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Chris Hofmeyr
> Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2011 9:03 AM
> To: Otto G. Raabe; Bernard L. Cohen
> Cc: radsafe at agni.phys.iit.edu; WesVanPelt at verizon.net
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Cohen's radon results and LNT
> 
> Prof Raabe,
> Your most recent Radsafe posting is appreciated as implying that my
> understanding of Cohen's radon data does not conflict with your
> proposals
> concerning cancer induction by protracted exposures, as explained in
> your
> well-considered 2011 paper.
> 
> I am thinking aloud about the alpha equal 2 beta effect. It is fairly
> trivial
> to calculate that a whole-body short-term lethal dose of a couple of
> Gray
> actually only affects one atom in a million. Of course, a DNA strand
> contains
> millions of atoms, but a double strand break cannot happen very far
> separated,
> or it would be classed as two single strand breaks.  The alpha would
> tend to
> break both strands close together, but how is that envisaged for two
> (uncorrelated?) betas, as the beta-active nuclei are presumably
> spatially well
> separated. Consecutive beta-decays are usually well separated in time,
> but a
> beta is often almost instantaneously followed by a gamma.
> Some clarification would be appreciated.
> 
> Sincerely
> chris.hofmeyr at webmail.co.za
> 
> 
> On Wed, 28 Sep 2011 12:00:14 -0700 "Otto G. Raabe" <ograabe at ucdavis.edu>
> wrote
> 
> > At 09:40 AM 9/28/2011, Chris Hofmeyr wrote:
> > >Prof Cohen, Radsafers,
> > >In the condensed notes on Cohen's radon studies (attached to posting
> > >on Radsafe
> > >21 Sept), I attempt to show unequivocally, although slightly
> > unconventionally,
> > >that Cohen's lung cancer (LC) mortality rates are basically
> independent of
> > the
> > >average domestic radon concentrations as determined by Cohen on a per
> county
> > >basis. This independence clearly means that LNT is REJECTED, since
> lung
> > cancer
> > >is not perceptibly correlated with domestic radon...
> > *****************
> > My Forum paper,  "Toward Improved Ionizing Radiation Safety
> > Standards", Health Phys. 101:84-93;2011, explains why LNT does not
> > apply to any protracted or repeated radiation 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
> > ***********************************************
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
> 
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> South Africas premier free email service - www.webmail.co.za
> 
> Save on insurance with OUTsurance
> https://www.outsurance.co.za/insurance-quote/?source=webmailmailer&cr=wu
> y11_468x60&cid=241
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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

____________________________________________________________
South Africas premier free email service - www.webmail.co.za 

For super low premiums, click here. http://www.dialdirect.co.za/?vdn=15828