Response to Ruth #1 on residency

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

Ruth, 



The Iowa study was a population-based case-CONTROL study. Of course 

they had a control group.  I don't buy the sexism charge.  In Iowa, I 

find it very plausible that historically men have worked outside the 

house more than women.  It would be sexist if all the studies were 

done on men and not women.  If they were sexist, they discriminated 

against men, not women.  I can imagine in their human subjects 

application, they probably had to explain why they did not include 

men.  The median is important, Dr. Field told me that in the planned 

international pooled radon analyses, data on subjects back even 40 

years will be used.  Their home exposure estimate was weighted by the 

time spent at home so not all the women had to spend 24/7 at home.



Please consider taking the time to read the paper before you 

criticize it. I saw that Dr. Field previously offered to send out a 

copy of the paper to any interested radsafer.  His email is bill-

field@uiowa.edu. 

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





Ruth wrote:



I agree that residency in the home is very important.   



That is one reason I like the Iowa Study.  The median time the 

subjects spent in their current home was over 30 years and at least 

20 years. They also weighted their exposure estimates by the time 

spent in the home. 







For this kind of study, "median" is relatively meaningless.  The 

minimum number of 20 years is the meaningful number. 







The Iowa Radon Lung Cancer Study was a large-scale epidemiology 

study, funded by the National Institute of Environmental Health 

Sciences that assessed the risk posed by residential radon exposure. 

The study was performed in Iowa and the participants were women 

throughout Iowa who lived in their current home for at least 20 

years. 







Shouldn't they also have had a control group of women that has lived 

in a low-radon area for at least 20 years? 





3. Why was the study performed in Iowa? 



The study was performed in Iowa for several reasons. Iowa has the 

highest average radon concentrations in the United States. In 

addition, women in Iowa tend to move less than most other states, 

which makes calculation of their past radon exposure easier. Iowa was 

also selected because it has a quality cancer registry, which helped 

us identify women who developed lung cancer. 







Again "tend to move less" is meaningless -- I guess here it means 

they could find women who had been in their homes for 20 years or 

more.  Also, it's the actual radon concentration in the home that 

matters -- not the radon concentration throughout Iowa. 





5. Why were only women selected for the study? 



The study was limited to women, because they historically tend to 

spend more time at home and they have less occupational exposure to 

other lung carcinogens. 





After getting over my shock at the sexism of this last, I must again 

ask: but  the women in the study?  Did all of them spend "more time 

at home" (more than men, presumably) for at least 20 

years?   "Historically" means only that this provided a criterion for 

selecting Iowa. 



The most questionable aspect is the absence of a control group.  In 

addition, there would have had to be correction for smoking. 



Ruth Weiner, Ph. D. 

ruthweiner@aol.com







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/