Re: Source of cancer data

["Michael Ford" <MFORD@PANTEX.COM>]

Maury, you beat me to it.



Mr. Williams, perhaps it would be of some value to understand how desperately the EPA has been trying to backfit its radon theory to justify its actions over the last decade or so.  I think you might call it the "Reverse" Scientific Method:  set a compliance level, tell everyone that radon is the second leading cause of lung cancer to better allow you to coerce Congress into providing you money, and then line researchers' pockets to publish studies to justify your compliance level ... or to cause enough doubt in a trusting public that the EPA can look paternally-prudent by saying "better safe than sorry."



I became just a tad bit jaded when I sat in on the radon session at the Denver HPS meeting a couple of years ago and listened to several individuals gush about the "exciting opportunities" for expanding roles with the new EPA rules on radon in water.  Nothing about good science, or finally some proof.  Nah, it was about more money and more jobs.



Regarding SEER, I'm still uncertain as to how *incidence* data is a useful tool in testing a hypothesis used to project *fatal cancers* per unit dose.  And as it was aptly pointed out in an earlier message, isn't there just a wee bit of insight provided by the fact that there a so few fatal cancers in a state with high radon levels (Iowa)?



A point was raised that has not been countered regarding the Iowa study's treatment of non-residential exposures.  That is, how accurate are the estimates of radon exposures in "other buildings"?  I would respond by saying that this is a potentially significant source of error within the study that has been glossed over.



Page 1093 of Am. J. Epidemiol Vol. 151, No. 11, 2000 states, "We studied the relation [sic] between bedroom radon concentrations and radon concentrations in other buildings for approximately 100 women in nearby Minnesota.  The results from this study suggested that the best estimate for the radon concentrations in other buildings is 0.5 times the first-floor radon concentration."



Questions:



1.  How does the construction of "other buildings" in Minnesota compare to that of Iowa?



2.  Any error bars associated with that 0.5 value?  I didn't see any in the report although a "detailed description" is reported to be provided elsewhere.  What if it turns out the "true value" for Iowa is 1.0 or 1.5?  What impact would that have on the results of the study?  Care to justify how the data for MN was used?



It just seems strange that for a potentially significant source of exposure so little effort was placed in characterizing it.



Looking at the methods of the study and tallying up the time spent in the "another building," "outside", and "away" categories, 20 to 30 percent of the exposure periods are based on fairly subjective estimates that could significantly impact the outcome.



If the EPA is looking for something to hang its hat on to justify the public's spending of over a trillion dollar on radon, the Iowa study won't do it.



v/r

Michael



My personal musings only.

------------------------------



Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2001 23:22:21 -0600

From: maury <maury@WEBTEXAS.COM>

Subject: Re: Source of cancer data



"I am not talking about the Iowa Radon Study, which most

epidemiologist believe is the state-of-the-art Radon Study. It is

even highlighted on the EPA web site:  http://www.epa.gov/iaq/radon/ "



Seems only a year or so ago that this controversy over the studies by

Cohen and the one by Field, et al took place on Radsafe. Now the same

ground has been reviewed again - which was fine until seeing: "... even

highlighted on the EPA web site ..." Suddenly, the discussion changed

for me from a disagreement over the interpretation of scientific data to

political comedy. To cite "highlighting by the EPA" as an endorsement of

scientific research is an utter oxymoron.....<snip>

Cheers,

Maury Siskel    maury@webtexas.com 

===============================

Mark Hogue wrote (in part):



"This is pretty funny, to appeal to the "authority" of the EPA when

discussing a scientific issue with people who should be assumed capable

of thinking on their own about the subject. I encourage others to check

out this link and find out how appreciated one can be if one justifies

an EPA project. Read the gushing quotes about the article!"





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

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.