[ RadSafe ] Fwd: Study Links Residential Radon Exposure to Hematologic Cancers in Women

Sun May 1 13:00:40 CDT 2016

This reminds me a lot of graduate school. There was a study published in
The Lancet: 
*Possible association between mutant frequency in peripheral lymphocytes
and domestic radon concentrations; *Volume 337, Issue 8751
<http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/01406736/337/8751>, 18 May
1991, Pages 1187-1189;

in which* hprt* mutant frequencies (possibly related to hematopoitic
cancers) appeared to show a statistically significant relationship with
radon concentrations measured in subject homes. For my Master's thesis I
recruited a bunch of nonsmoking high school kids, measured radon in their
bedrooms for a full year, drew some blood and measured mutant frequencies
and determined that there was no relationship between the two. Our results
were eventually published here:
*Hprt Mutant Frequency, Non-Pulmonary Malignancies and Domestic Radon
Exposure: Post-**Mortem Analysis of an Interesting Hypothesis*; Ruttenber,
A.J., Harrison, L., Barron, A;

Environmental and Molecular Mutagenesis, 2001;37(1):7-16.

At about the same time, the authors of the original study conducted a
better one, and also found no correlation. (
Jane Cole, Michael H. L. Green, Bryn A. Bridges, Alastair P. W. Waugh,
David M. Beare, Denis Henshaw, Rex Last, Yafei Liu, and Gino Cortopassi (
*1996*)
*Lack of Evidence for an Association between the Frequency of Mutants or
Translocations in Circulating Lymphocytes and Exposure to Radon Gas in
the Home*. Radiation Research: January 1996, Vol. 145, No. 1, pp. 61-69.
)

Ecological studies are good for teaching statistical methods in
epidemiology, and sometimes for hypothesis generation, but those involving
radon at the county level are hardly ever confirmed by studies with better
designs. I'm tempted to say never confirmed, but there might be one or two
out there I've missed. Searching the literature for links between leukemia
and radon shows a number of ecological studies that show a correlation and
a bigger number of good, prospective cohort studies that find no such
correlation. There's really no need to wait for confirmation by better
studies: the studies have been done, the findings are clear, and the
authors of this latest paper should have done a better job of reviewing the
available literature.

My two cents, obviously, and just as obviously, my personal opinion and not
that of my employer.

*Tony Harrison, MSPH*

*Chemistry Supervisor*

P 303-692-3046  |  F 303-691-4069

8100 Lowry Blvd.  Denver, CO 80230

tony.harrison at state.co.us  | colorado.gov/cdphe

Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2016 16:17:01 -0400
> From: Brad Keck <bradkeck at mac.com>
> To: "The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing
>         List"   <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Study Links Residential Radon Exposure to
>         Hematologic Cancers in Women
> Message-ID: <3E8FD1E7-7824-49A4-9D7B-D6809319FB78 at mac.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain;       charset=utf-8
>
> Roy,
>
> I would note that the radon map they are using (citing a 1982 database) is
> strikingly different than the radon map currently issued by USEPA  (
> https://www.epa.gov/radon/find-information-about-local-radon-zones-and-radon-programs#radonmap
> <
> https://www.epa.gov/radon/find-information-about-local-radon-zones-and-radon-programs#radonmap>
> ).
>
> I would suspect that if a modern, more complete database were used, then
> the apparent significance in one group studied might well fail significance
> - but the authors do not comment on this aspect of the study.  In addition,
> they make no argument that the 1982 county data is representative of the
> actual cases observed - that the actual cancer cases come from a house that
> is actually high (or low) in radon.
>
> To their credit, they recognize that this result would need to be
> confirmed independently (and hopefully with much better radon data) before
> being acted upon?.
>
>
> Brad
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 29, 2016, at 2:44 AM, ROY HERREN <royherren2005 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> http://pressroom.cancer.org/releases?item=602&_ga=1.220286168.1585737187.1461911168
> >
> > Study Links Residential Radon Exposure to Hematologic Cancers in Women
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2016 18:35:34 -0400
> From: Chris Alston <achris1999 at gmail.com>
> To: "The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing
>         List"   <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
> Subject: [ RadSafe ] Fwd: Study Links Residential Radon Exposure to
>         Hematologic Cancers in Women
> Message-ID:
>         <CAADHP=N7dbJ55zYVS-LNOPEmg0RaWBCMKMd=
> 24nyEtdX3QEnCw at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> Brad et al.
>
> That was my first thought.  Without estimates of the actual amounts of
> radon, there's no way to correlate cases with doses.  Even in regions
> notorious for high residential radon, one house may have levels at the
> national norm, while the one next door has enough that its
> inhabitants' garments can set off portal monitors.  In fact, the
> authors carefully note that they've found an *association*.
>
> I suspect that such papers are symptomatic of the publish-or-perish
> syndrome.  And, as you say, they call very appropriately for further
> study.  That research would be quite time-consuming, I should think.
>
> Cheers
> ca
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Brad Keck <bradkeck at mac.com>
> Date: Sat, Apr 30, 2016 at 4:17 PM
> Roy,
> In addition, they make no argument that the 1982 county data is
> representative of the actual cases observed - that the actual cancer
> cases come from a house that is actually high (or low) in radon.
>
> To their credit, they recognize that this result would need to be
> confirmed independently (and hopefully with much better radon data)
> before being acted upon?.
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> RadSafe mailing list
> RadSafe at health.phys.iit.edu
> http://health.phys.iit.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/radsafe
>
>
> End of RadSafe Digest, Vol 2076, Issue 1
> ****************************************
>