Re: Deaths from fossil fuel burning air pollution

["Otto G. Raabe" <ograabe@ucdavis.edu>]

At 09:04 AM 11/22/00 -0600, Prof. Cohen wrote:
>
>	--The key word here is "increases". As long as these increases
>stay within the range of available data, I see nothing wrong with this and
>I don't see why it should be called LNT. The problem with LNT as applied
>to radiation is that it is *extrapolated* far outside the region where
>there are data. In the case of air pollution, it is *interpolated*,
>staying within the region where there are data.
***********************************************************
November 22, 2000
Davis, CA

I believe that this use of air pollution data is actually similar to what
has been done with atomic bomb survivor data. The RERF can claim that their
regression fit to atomic bomb survivor data is similarly being interpolated
since they have data at both ends of the fit. There are plenty of data for
persons  receiving no (or very low) a-bomb radiation exposure as well as
for persons receiving high exposure. The LNT model that is used for
radiation effects is thus just an interpolation between available data.

The key is the shape of the dose-response curve. If a linear function is
used for interpolation and the actual relationship is non-linear, the
interpolation can lead to gross errors. This is what occurs when attempts
are made to assign bodies to small increases in airborne particulate matter.

Otto
**********************************************
Prof. Otto G. Raabe, Ph.D., CHP
Institute of Toxicology & Environmental Health
(Street Address: Bldg. 3792, Old Davis Road) 
University of California, Davis, CA 95616
E-Mail: ograabe@ucdavis.edu
Phone: (530) 752-7754   FAX: (530) 758-6140
***********************************************
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html