Re: Interesting non-scientific article from many years ago!

[BERNARD L COHEN <blc+@PITT.EDU>]

On Sat, 12 Jan 2002, Rad health wrote:



> http://www.fortfreedom.org/k21.htm,

>

> It looks like this argument has been going on for many years.

>

> "Bill  Ruckelshaus [EPA head,  1983 to 1985] was nearly cited for contempt

> trying to develop a more realistic risk on radon,'' even though seminal work

>   by Dr. Bernard Cohen at the university of Pittsburgh had shown there is

> no health risk from residential radon.

>

>    However, as Dr. Cohen told  me, ``You understand, radon is the

> most serious risk with which the EPA is now dealing.''

>

>    ``But, Dr. Cohen,'' I said,  ``you just got through telling me

> that residential radon poses no public health risk!''

>

>    ``That's right,'' he said.



	--I don't remember anything about my conversation with Mr. Brooks

which he wrote about and you are quoting. But what Brooks wrote is hardly

understandable to me. The conversation took place in 1989, long

before my work was convincing, even to me. In fact, at that time, I still

believed in LNT, although I was starting to have doubts. I even spent

$1500 to reduce the radon in my own home at that time -- in 1991, I turned

the system off because I was convinced by my work.



>

> Dr. Cohen,

>

> 1. Do you believe as stated above that there are no health risks from

> prolonged exposure to residential radon exposure?



	--I personally believe that radon levels below 5pCi/L are not

harmful. But what I personally believe is not relevant. What is relevant

is what my work has clearly demonstrated, that the risks estimated by LNT

in that region are grossly over-estimated.



> 2.  Was the basis for your statement above your ecologic findings?

> If so, did you not previously say that you can not use an ecologic study to

> asess the risk posed by residential radon exposure?



	--It is clear to me that I was misquoted. I have always said that

an ecological study cannot determine the risk vs dose to an individual.

What my ecological study showed is that LNT fails badly, grossly

over-estimating the risk from low level radon exposure. If a risk is based

on LNT, it is therefore a gross over-estimate.



> 3.  Was the seminal work the author of this article referring to your

> ecologic studies?



	--I assume so, but the words are his, not mine.



> 4.   Do you also believe the EPA should lower its action level for radon

> based on your ecologic findings?



	--Since EPA bases its risk estimates on LNT, I believe it should

raise (not lower) its action level.



>

> 5.   Do you believe your findings for radon can be extended to other toxics

> as the article presents?



	--If estimates for other toxics are based on LNT, with no direct

experimental support in the low dose region, I believe they are on very

shaky grounds. On the other hand, the air pollution situation, with which

I am familiar, is based on data in the low dose region and is therefore on

reasonably firm grounds.



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

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/