Re: Re: Radon - recent articles supporting risk at residential exposures

["John Williams" <JohnWi@law.com>]

My major interest in Epidemiology is not radon, but rather smoking 

and lung cancer.  I focus on radon on this listserv since it has  a 

focus on radiation, not particulates.  Most of the particulate 

studies including Samet's are ecologic in nature.  In fact, Samet has 

been criticized for urging people not to use ecologic studies for 

radon and then he uses them for particulates. At least, Lubin and 

Field are consistent with their criticism of ecologic studies.



see:http://www.junkscience.com/news/samet-air-pollution.html





Blowin' in the Wind--Jonathan Samet and Air Pollution

Breath-Taking: Premature Mortality Due to

Particulate Air Pollution in 239 American Cities

Natural Resources Defense Council, May 1996





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

----------



This study estimates that 64,000 people may die prematurely from 

heart and lung disease each year due to particulate air pollution. 

This estimate is based on two epidemiologic studies: Harvard's 

1993 "Six City Study" (New Engl J Med 1993;329:1753-1759) which 

followed over 8,000 people in six small cities for a period of 14 to 

16 years, and a 1995 American Cancer Society Study of a half a 

million people in 151 cities (Amer J Resp Crit Care Med 1995; 151:669-

674). Both studies are the "ecologic" variety of epidemiology--i.e., 

studies that examine the association between disease occurrence in 

groups and the guessed exposure of the groups. Ecologic studies 

contrast with, for example, case control studies where exposures in 

cases of disease are compared with exposures in controls without 

disease.



One of the more interesting aspects of this study is that one of its 

reviewers is none other than Jonathan M. Samet. Samet is a staunch 

defender of the radon epidemiology (and we all know that radon is 

such a public health problem that no one noticed it until the 

1980s!). When the link between radon and lung cancer risk came under 

attack because published ecologic studies were finding no and even 

negative associations between radon and lung cancer risk, Samet moved 

to head off the attack.



As Defender of the Radon Realm, Samet published an article which was 

highly critical of ecologic epidemiology (Health Phys 1993;65(3):234-

251). Samet concluded that



The methodologic limitations inherent in the ecologic method may 

substantially bias ecologic estimates of risk... In fact, further 

ecologic studies of indoor radon and lung cancer are to be 

discouraged. 



Now, Samet has reversed his position on ecologic studies for the NRDC 

air pollution study. Has ecologic epidemiology been healed? For 

Samet, it probably depends on the circumstances. While ecologic 

studies are bad for radon grant grubbing and fearmongering, they're 

clearly good for particulate air pollution grant grubbing and 

fearmongering.





Sent by Law  Mail

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

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. You can view the Radsafe archives at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/