[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Radon and Never Smokers



Tom,



I am not sure it is new math, but the Odds Ratios in table 5 are adjusted 

for urbanization, socioeconomic status and others.  While table 4 crude 

estimates are not.  I do not see the analyses broken down by sex.  Their 

radon measurements concern me a bit since it does not look like year long 

radon measurements unless I am missing something.  I agree the radon 

concentrations look pretty low.



>From: Tom Mohaupt <tom.mohaupt@wright.edu>

>To: Jim Nelson <nelsonjima@hotmail.com>, RadSafe 

><radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu>

>Subject: Re: Radon and Never Smokers

>Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 12:27:13 -0400

>

>Indeed an interesting study. Thanks Jim for bringing it to our attention.

>Some comments:

>

>1) The relative risks presented in Table 5 adjusted with missing data

>imputed. They state the relative risk as 1.55 for radon concentrations

>greater than 140 Bq/m^3. From Table 4, concentrations greater than 200

>Bq/m^3 (with imputed data) give a RR of 1.067 [Cases: 13/258; Controls:

>23/487]. Big difference. New math?

>

>2) Looking over Table 4, there really isn't a discernible difference

>between the cases and controls. Any differences in percentages can easily

>be swayed by one or two cases (or controls) improperly grouped.

>

>3) It doesn't look like Sweden has a genuine radon problem. The control

>distribution of radon concentration should represent the country at large.

>In such case, less than 5% of the population is exposed to radon

>concentration more than 200 Bq/m^3 (the European action level for new

>construction) and 0.6% of the population is exposed to radon concentrations

>more than 400 Bq/m^3 ( the action level for existing structures).

>

>4) I would have liked to see the authors include higher categories of radon

>concentrations, such as 800 and 1200 Bq/m^3, since these levels do exist

>and are biologically more important. Using administrative values as data

>cutoff point is OK as long as higher cutoff values are presented for

>comparison (i.e., 400 Bq/m^3 to infinity represents an enormous spectrum of

>concentrations).

>

>Tom

>

>

>

>Jim Nelson wrote:

> >

> > Interesting article recently published.

> > http://www.epidem.com/article.asp?ISSN=1044-3983&VOL=12&ISS=4&PAGE=396

> >

> > Residential Radon and Lung Cancer among Never-Smokers in Sweden

> >

> > Frédéric Lagarde1; Gösta Axelsson2; Lena Damber3; Hans Mellander4; 

>Fredrik

> > Nyberg1; Göran Pershagen1,5

> >

> > >From the 1Institute of Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Institutet,

> > Stockholm;

> > 2Department of Environmental Medicine, Göteborg University, Gothenburg;

> > 3Department of Oncology, University Hospital, Ume;

> > 4Swedish Radiation Protection Institute, Stockholm; and

> > 5Department of Environmental Health, Stockholm County Council, 

>Stockholm,

> > Sweden.

> >

> > EPIDEMIOLOGY 2001;12:396-404

> >

> > 

>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

> >

> > In this study, we attempted to reduce existing uncertainty about the

> > relative risk of lung cancer from residential radon exposure among

> > never-smokers. Comprehensive measurements of domestic radon were 

>performed

> > for 258 never-smoking lung cancer cases and 487 never-smoking controls 

>from

> > five Swedish case-control studies. With additional never-smokers from a

> > previous case-control study of lung cancer and residential radon 

>exposure in

> > Sweden, a total of 436 never-smoking lung cancer cases diagnosed in 

>Sweden

> > between 1980 and 1995 and 1,649 never-smoking controls were included. 

>The

> > relative risks (with 95% confidence intervals in parentheses) of lung 

>cancer

> > in relation to categories of time-weighted average domestic radon

> > concentration during three decades, delimited by cutpoints at 50, 80, 

>and

> > 140 Bq m–3, were 1.08 (0.8–1.5), 1.18 (0.9–1.6), and 1.44 (1.0–2.1),

> > respectively, with average radon concentrations below 50 Bq m–3 used as

> > reference category and with adjustment for other risk factors. The data

> > suggested that among never-smokers residential radon exposure may be 

>more

> > harmful for those exposed to environmental tobacco smoke. Overall, an 

>excess

> > relative risk of 10% per 100 Bq m–3 average radon concentration was

> > estimated, which is similar to the summary effect estimate for all 

>subjects

> > in the main residential radon studies to date.

> >

> > Keywords: case-control study; lung neoplasms; risk assessment; radon;

> > never-smokers; cocarcinogenesis; tobacco smoke pollution; environmental

> > exposures

> >

> > _________________________________________________________________

> > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

> >

> > ************************************************************************

> > You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To 

>unsubscribe,

> > send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu  Put the text 

>"unsubscribe

> > radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject 

>line.

>

>--

>Thomas Mohaupt, M.S., CHP

>University Radiation Safety Officer

>

>104 Health Sciences Bldg

>Wright State University

>Dayton, Ohio 45435

>tom.mohaupt@wright.edu

>(937) 775-2169

>(937) 775-3761 (fax)

>

>"An investment in knowledge gains the best interest." Ben Franklin



_________________________________________________________________

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com



************************************************************************

You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,

send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu  Put the text "unsubscribe

radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.