[ RadSafe ] When Radiation Isn?t the Real Risk

[S L Gawarecki]

Re Dan's comment on the general unhealthiness of living in the South--I'm
well aware of that, as Tennessee has the same issues as Alabama. I just try
to stay away from all that fried food and sugary snacks and lead a
healthier personal lifestyle.

Cancer incidence and mortality rates are typically normalized with respect
to age, so that comparisons can be better made between localities. However,
I agree that Colorado is likelier to have a population more generally
attuned to physical activity and healthier living than Alabama. But what
this indicates to me is that low-level radiation exposure is not a
significant factor in contributing to cancer risk--unlike what the
fear-mongers would have us believe.

Similarly, several years ago there was a meta evaluation of cancer
incidence among DOE workers at several facilities comparing badged workers
with unbadged (administrative) workers. The badged workers had
significantly lower cancer incidence. The epidemiologist explained this
away by citing the "healthier worker" hypothesis (badged workers were more
physically active than unbadged workers). Of course one could not cite
hormesis! I'm sure if the results had gone the other way, radiation
exposure would have been blamed.


Regards,
*Susan Gawarecki*

ph: 865-494-0102
cell:  865-604-3724
SLGawarecki at gmail.com