Re: Radon vs. LNT - [CUT TO] the Chase

["Michael S Ford" <MFORD@pantex.com>]

Bill,

What I was really trying to emphasize on this thread was the "CUT TO" part....

The problems with the perceived radon "health threat" are manifold:

1.  There are gaps in the uranium miner data large enough to drive several semi-trucks through.  Bernie is getting beat up for his "scaling-up" as Lubin puts it, but what about all of the "scaling up" that took place in the miner studies?  For example, using only a few (five of fewer) radon measurements to create dose estimates for a group of miners at a particular mine for *its entire operating history*, "scaling-up" all observed health effects to radon while ignoring obvious confounders, and continuing to ignore the general absence of lung cancer in non-smoking miners.  

[Care to comment on this?  Dr. Gino Saccomanno of St. Mary's Hospital in Grand Junction, CO hasn't found a single case of lung cancer among nonsmoking U miners in over 40 years of practice]

2. Smokers receive significant doses (rem range) from radon progeny.

3.  The EPA-Radon Industry  —- a self-sustaining, fear-mongering, bureaucracy-building monolith that likes to ignore the BEIR caveats, misinterpret and misreport data for the intent of maintaining the "radon health threat" scam and continue to bilk citizens out of billions of dollars (that's Billions with a BIG B) every year.

... In my humble (and informed) opinion... 

Number 3 above is enough to make the entire charade sickening.  As Tom Mohaupt points out, the EPA has taken a VERY BIG question mark drawn by BEIR and later studies (including controlled cohort studies) and turned radon into a DEFINITIVE killer with tens of thousands of IMAGINARY bodies piling up every year.  When they or others in the radon industry are called out on this, their response is a big YAWN.

I apologize if I'm being overly abrasive, but I just can't stomach the deception anymore.  While I can understand the interest in the study of radon, please don't try to attach any more of a health hazard than can be objectively defended.  It has not been proven as a carcinogen in the home, no matter what the EPA says.

v/r
Michael
TRAB
mford@pantex.com

************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html