[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.