[ RadSafe ] Grand Junction, was: Cohen's radon results differently

Wed Sep 21 10:19:10 CDT 2011

That doesn't mean there wasn't a huge health issue in Grand Junction.  Over 10,000 properties had to be surveyed, and over 4,000 were cleaned up. The uranium mill in GJ regulated by the AEA in those days (~1951 - 1965) allowed mill tailings to be taken for free and were used everywhere one could imagine in commercial and residential construction. One can trace the entire indoor radon program to the Grand Junction experience, as elevated indoor radon levels were associated with the use of the tailings.  As we speak, there is still a post-UMTRA program in Grand Junction, and we often find properties that have exposure rates that exceed today's public dose limit of 100 mrem/y, and there are still properties out there with gamma exposure and/or radon issues that were either not addressed under UMTRA (it was voluntary) or were partially addressed under a previous program known as GJRAP that was not always effective.  We do not have access to many of the homes we would like to measure, and are concerned that many basement apartments and bedrooms may still have high radon levels. We do as much public outreach as we can with our limited resources.

The population of GJ was (and may still be) too small for solid epidemiological proof of cancer risk from mill tailings in residential settings. If memory serves me correct, they only looked for solid cancer mortality and did not look at morbidity or leukemia (but I need to check up on that).  We had a lot of dead uranium miners and millers who were more exposed (using relative lay terms) compared to the general public, mostly from the pre-1960s, when ventilation was introduced into the mining practices.  Many of the general public had exposures in their homes to radon and gamma from tailings that were unacceptable.  Note that the public dose limit was 500 mrem/y when UMTRA was passed in 1978, it is now 100 mrem/y, and the source constraint on cleanup and release is either 15 or 25 mrem/y, depending on who is the regulator.  The EPA EIS estimated 135 mrad/y from 5 pCi/g Ra-226 left in soil under a residential scenario.

I would also note that the MSHA radiation regulations for underground uranium miners has not been updated since the 1970s, and is still today using ICRP 2 methodology - no summing of internal or external dose, MPCs, 4 WLM/y from radon (which is ~ 5 rem) PLUS up to 5 more rem from gamma, and no accounting for long-lived progeny. They are only compelled to make gamma exposure rate measurements annually(!). The uranium miners under the law do not get a consistent level of protection as other radiation workers. My understanding is that uranium mining companies go beyond the minimum requirements in the old law, but I have no way of knowing if all of them do.  Unfortunately, CDPHE does not regulate mining, our authority starts at the mill. 

Using County statistics does not work for me in all instances. For example, Montrose County epi studies do not take into account a mountain range that bisects the county - the eastern half has no uranium mining or milling (and most of the population); all the historical exposures were in the west end of the County, and to a much smaller cohort.  The Uravan mineral belt spans 3 or 4 counties in CO, but none of the counties are completely within the mineral belt.

This is a touchy issue for me, as we just issued a license for the first new conventional uranium mill in 25 years in Montrose County, and DOE is currently undergoing an EIS for the uranium lease tracts they control for future uranium mining.  I sat in on at least a dozen public meetings hearing from both sides, and have spent the last 25 years of my life cleaning up the old uranium sites, 2 of which in CO are Superfund (along with other duties).  We have spent a lot of money cleaning up the old uranium mills and vicinity properties, and abandoned uranium mines persist throughout the west, so we want to be careful as we go forward (depending on how the lawsuits end up).  We have taken the lessons from the past and are looking forward, but must be sensitive to the pain that many suffered from lax Federal oversight during the Cold War.

Thanks for letting me rant a little.  You can now return to your regularly scheduled programming...

PVE

Phil Egidi
Environmental Protection Specialist III
Radiation Management Unit
Radiation Program
Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Division

222 S. 6th St. Rm 232
Grand Junction, CO 81501
(970) 248-7162
(970) 209-2885 Cell
(303) 692-3447 Denver

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu [mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Dan W McCarn
Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 8:32 PM
To: 'The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) MailingList'
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Cohen's radon results differently

Hi Chris:

As Mike pointed out, sometimes other factors strongly influence statistics.

Perhaps Mike was referring to an international story in the spring of 1980
about Grand Junction, Colorado in Mesa County and the surprising increase in
cancer rates.  Even friends in London contacted me about these statistics.
There was concern about the use of uranium mill tailings in the construction
of residential structures in Mesa County.

As it turned out, the reporter divided the "new" annual cancer cases
reported by St. Mary's Hospital by the population of Mesa County, giving a
quite high number. After an investigation, St. Mary's new regional cancer
center, servicing all of Western Colorado and Eastern Utah, revealed that
the cancer rates for people from Mesa County were actually quite low. 

Dan ii

--
Dan W McCarn, Geologist
108 Sherwood Blvd
Los Alamos, NM 87544-3425
+1-505-672-2014 (Home - New Mexico)
+1-505-670-8123 (Mobile - New Mexico)
HotGreenChile at gmail.com (Private email) HotGreenChile at gmail dot com

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Brennan, Mike
(DOH)
Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 17:50
To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) MailingList
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Cohen's radon results differently

Hi, Chris.  

I believe this is indeed a reasonable consideration.  Long ago I heard a
story about an anti-nuke group that tried to get a nuclear power plant
shut down a couple of years after start-up by showing that there had
been a substantial increase in the number of deaths in the county the
plant was located in.  A closer look at the data showed the correct
correlation was an increase in the number of deaths in the county and
the opening of a new hospital, in part funded by the power plant.  The
new hospital not only served a county that previously had no hospital,
but also several surrounding counties that had no hospital.  I don't
remember the name of the plant, so I can't check on the validity of this
story, but neither the statistics not the alleged misrepresentation by
the antis strike me as unreasonable. 

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Chris Hofmeyr
Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 2:01 PM
To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing
List; Bernard L. Cohen
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Cohen's radon results differently

Mike Brennan, prof Cohen,

The thought has crossed my mind whether specifically some lung cancer
sufferers
in small population counties might migrate to larger centres for
treatment and
care prior to their death being recorded there. On the other hand, lung
cancer
(LC) mortality against the county rank of population size follows the
smoking
trend against the same. The enormous range of county population (700 to
5.3
million)is selectively (and fortuitously) condensed in the rank plot
such that
the LC and smoking plots are ~linear.

Sincerely
chris.hofmeyr at webmail.co.za 

On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 13:20:35 -0400 "Bernard L. Cohen" <blc at pitt.edu>
wrote

> My analyses excluded the retirement states, Florida, California, and
> Arizona, although including them did not change the results. I did
> present evidence that movement of people was not a serious problem,
but
> I do not remember the details; it gave data on distance from death
> location to where most of their lives were spent. I can look this up
if
> you consider it to be very important.
> 
> On 9/19/2011 7:20 PM, Brennan, Mike (DOH) wrote:
> > Another confounder, I would expect, is the movement of people.  For
> > example, my in-laws moved to a retirement home near us, about two
years
> > before my mother-in-law died (not of cancer).  Any statistics pegged
to
> > the county in which she died would introduce error into any study
other
> > than one about end-of-life care, as the conditions in this county
have
> > nothing to do with here long term health.  I would estimate that
well
> > over half of the people at this large retirement facility are from
out
> > of the county, and not a few from out of the state.  This effect has
to
> > be even greater for places like Florida.
> >
> > The unlikely political bedfellows of Hilary Clinton and Newt
Gingrich
> > have teamed up to support a national health records program (though
> > neither has spoken much about it recently).  The cost savings, both
in
> > lives and in money, would be substantial, but I see even greater
> > possibilities in terms of being able to get MUCH better data for
studies
> > such as this.  Imagine if instead of estimates of smoking prevalence
you
> > could CONTROL for smoking habits of the case and control cohorts.
> >
> > There are people who contend that such a system is too much of an
> > intrusion into privacy, and that the couple tens of thousands of
people
> > who die each year due to incomplete or inaccessible medical records
is a
> > fair price to pay.  While I don't think they are right, I think they
> > will probably win until the Facebook generation takes the lead.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
> > [mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Bernard L.
> > Cohen
> > Sent: Monday, September 19, 2011 3:55 PM
> > To: Chris Hofmeyr
> > Cc: radsafe at agni.phys.iit.edu; WesVanPelt at verizon.net
> > Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Cohen's radon results differently
> >
> > To do anything, I would need some credible source of smoking
prevalence
> > data. I tried several and they did not change my results. Please
suggest
> >
> > an alternative.
> >
> > On 9/18/2011 3:31 PM, Chris Hofmeyr wrote:
> >>
> >> Radsafers,
> >> On 19th June Howard Long challenged my reminder that in Cohen's
> > US-wide study
> >> of domestic radon and lung cancer, there was, on average, a
negative
> >> correlation between Cohen's smoking prevalence and the average
county
> > radon
> >> concentration. Howard wanted numbers.
> >> On 20th June prof Cohen invited further discussion of his work.  
> > etc.

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

Cover from as little as R150/month
http://adserver.adtech.de/?adlink|3.0|559|3316077|1|16|AdId=6699460;BnId
=1;link=http://www.oldmutual.co.za/personal/investments-and-savings/inve
sting-for-growth/investment-plan.aspx?audienceid=2

_______________________________________________
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