Re: Radon vs. LNT - the Chase

[Tom Mohaupt <tom.mohaupt@wright.edu>]

Bill Field touched on something that really bothers me and that is the
EPA's message that radon IS the second leading cause of lung cancer. He
says "If the extrapolations from miners are correct" which really does not
express the confirmatory knowledge needed to use the word "IS". Many people
think the EPA should not use such strong language because that level of
knowledge has not been obtained.  

I've worked closely with lung cancer patients too and agree that it is a
dreadful disease. Personally, I think emphysema, another result of smoking,
is worse. 

Are any researchers performing perspective studies? Case-control studies
are appropriate methods to suggest a hazard, but prospective studies should
be used to verify the hypothesis. Dr. Cohen's study certainly doesn't
fulfill the criteria to be a cohort study and from what I've read, he is in
no way implies it to be as such. But lacking a prospective study, his
findings are interesting - as interesting as the miner data and residential
case-control studies. Dr. Cohen's test and the case-control studies only
suggest possible interpretations as to what the real biological outcome may
be. To me the real question is "Does radon increase the incidence of lung
cancer IN NON-SMOKERS?". The pro argument has not been very convincing. A
controlled cohort study is needed.

One thing I'm not clear on (and apparently no one else is either) is what
are the top 5 causes of lung cancer. Also what are their per capita rates
(say per 100,000)of lung cancer deaths AND what are their standard
deviations. Would someone please post this information?