[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Background Radiation Information Sought
-----Original Message-----
From: Les Crable
Jim,
I think Iowa is the best state to perform a radon epidemiology study.
You do Not want certain areas high and certain areas low. Maybe for an
ecologic study, but not for a case control study. What you want is a
wide
range of radon exposures so that you are able to get a dose response
relationship. If you look at the Iowa study, that is what they have - a
very nice wide distribution of exposures. The distribution is still log
normal in Iowa, so there are many low measurements.
Les Crable
<This isn't true. It's even worse in a "case-control" study. You can't
know the actual dose to individuals in any so-called radon case-control
study, when the whole population is exposed to a radon-prone environment
you know even LESS that the dose to any individual correlates with a
house measurement. The only "good" in a "good case-control study" comes
only from limiting one major variable, i.e., knowing the dose to the
individuals.
When you don't know that, the study is simply a small (too small)
statistical correlation study that loses all power and produces results
that vary all over the place, and especially tends to the null, as the
many small case control population studies routinely demonstrate, many
of which are just "junk science" in terms of the validity of the
correlation produced (size of population, quality of measurements, etc.)
No two people in the same house will have equivalent doses. Two people
in two houses that measure the same are less likely to have equivalent
actual doses.
So when the condition is further compromised by the fact that people
whose houses measure low radon live in a generally high-radon
environment, they are not exposed to "low doses" the same way a person
is exposed when they live a a low radon area. A large population study
has the statistical capability to produce a narrow central tendency to
produce a valid, reproducible, effect.
This is further compromised by selecting a high-dose state. Since the
actual correlation in Cohen's data, and in other substantial studies,
shows a reduced slope in the high range, with a large slope in the low
range, the likelihood of finding a credible result in Louisianna is
greater than finding a credible result (whether considering the fact
that the slope between 1.0 and 1.5 is much greater than between 5.0 and
5.5, the percent difference, or the constaint on the lower limit, all
will tend to more strongly make a statistical difference evident).
In any event, everyone should consider that at the end of the day, the
issue is just a statistical representation of real people with real
expsosures, not just semantics about what is a "good" or "better" type
of study. If you want the "best" case-control studies, put people in
glass cages and measure real doses, or a "good" case-control study, give
them personal dosimeters until normal variations are stabilized (a
year?) They did this in China.
It's not undoable, but researchers don't get support for studies that
would tend to definitive results (as said by senior AEC and ORNL
officials in '72) validated when Frigerio's study was killed by AEC in
'73, continued by NRC and ERDA/DOE, well known to, and results
suppressed by, the ICRP/NCRP/UNSCEAR/BEIR Committees, etc. The '73
report results only got "pub'd" because Frigerio got to an IAEA Conf in
'76 because it was specifically on effects of background radiation.
There's no "full paper."
Cohen's county-level results could have been achieved in the 70's for
all background radiation and all cancers, etc. if supported. But killed.
(It only got started because the licensing people were responding to the
'71 Calvert Cliffs decision. Wouldn't have been started by the radiation
researchers who knew better.) And nobody then would "argue" that
"ecological studies" don't count. After all, epi was founded solely on
ecological studies. This rhetorical non-science argument was created
solely to ignore Cohen's work. Note also that Cohen's work was funded
solely by himself. The regulatory research community wouldn't fund any
such study after they dodged the Frigerio bullet!
But the Cohen and Colditz 1994 paper puts a real epidemiologist, not a
regulatory apologist, on the record as confirming the epidemiological
validity of Cohen's results. Maybe you can do a PubMed search on
"colditz g") Of course once the political-science machinery started to
grind, Colditz decided he wanted none of it and refused to make any
statements - is that "survival," "cowardice," "moral terpitude?" I
suspect that if there were ever a serious and formal consideration of
the scientific merits instead of political manipulations, he would
speak. We haven't yet found ANYONE in the establishment to put the
question on the table.
So the real question is: When will this issue get any serious hearing?
Certainly wasn't considered by NCRP in 136, despite assurances and
correspondence from Chairman Jackson requiring that the data be
considered following our testimony to the NRC. NCRP just held out a long
time, supported the DOE in fradulently claiming that AEC/DOE nuclear
workers were getting radiation-induced cancer (with total silence by the
HPS and all the others who had for decades said that the workers were
well protected to very conservative standards to get political attection
on "even greater risks from IR than previously suspected"). Even NCRP
President Lauri Taylor had said in 1980 that using the LNT was immoral.
Obviously 4 mrem/year can't make any difference to public health, so the
only purpose is to increase the funding for radiation protection. And
once some researchers got new funding through DOE, they became "silent"
partners in questioning the LNT. There will be some useful work, but DOE
specifically expunged research that would provide good results in a
short time in favor of 10 years at $20M/year feeding national lab and
establishment people to do essentially useless work, just we had advised
Domenici when he responded to our case with the new funds. Fortunately
some biology on the subject is getting done despite funding mostly
useless rad physics with their "hits" and "bystander effects" ina vacuum
(intellectual and moral). But again, most don't know better. They don't
understand biology and life processes.
Regards, Jim
============
>From: "Jim Muckerheide" <jmuckerheide@cnts.wpi.edu>
>Reply-To: "Jim Muckerheide" <jmuckerheide@cnts.wpi.edu>
>To: "Jim Otton" <jkotton@usgs.gov>
>CC: <radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu>
>Subject: RE: Background Radiation Information Sought
>Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 12:16:00 -0500
>
>Jim O.
>
>The residential concentration groups are "doses." Is the data set
behind
>these groups available? It would be interesting to see radon,
>terrestrial, and cosmic summed by county. Does this really not exist
>anywhere?
>
>On the national map it's easy to see that Iowa is the worst state to
try
>to find a radon dose-response. There is no low-dose region! Eliminates
>the meaningful data in Cohen and other more substantial analyses!? :-)
>
>Now Tennessee would be good! :-) Virginia, but ocean/mountain
>confounders; Connecticut has the opposite - hi radon on the ocean side;
>Nebraska giant counties and population density problems? Alabama, but
>disparate? Who would do Louisianna - all counties low!?
>
>Regards, Jim
>============
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Jim Otton
>Sent: Mon 14-Jan-02 11:22 AM
>To: Jim Muckerheide
>Cc: radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu
>Subject: RE: Background Radiation Information Sought
>
>Jim M,
>There is no radon dose information at the USGS site. The USGS role in
>radon
>studies focused on the geologic causes of variation in indoor radon
>levels
>and devloping means of estimating the geologic radon potential for the
>U.S.
>In the work performed by the USGS for the EPA in mapping U.S. radon
>potential, we focused on developing geologic estimates of the average
>indoor
>radon level of residences the U.S. These geologic radon potential
>estimates
>were published by the USGS in a series of 11 Open-File reports in 1993
>and
>1995. These 11 reports covered each of EPA's 10 regions plus an extra
>report for Guam and Puerto Rico. EPA then used these geologic
estimates
>to
>develop their "Map of Radon Zones"
>(http://www.epa.gov/iaq/radon/zonemap.html) in which each county
>received a
>low, moderate or high (yellow, orange, red) ranking.
>
>Jim Otton
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Jim Muckerheide [mailto:jmuckerheide@cnts.wpi.edu]
>Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 10:59 PM
>To: Jim Otton
>Cc: radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu
>Subject: RE: Background Radiation Information Sought
>
>
>Jim,
>
>Is there radon dose info on this "radon site?" :-)
>
>Any way to add terrestrial to radon doses by location? plus cosmic?
>
>These sources don't address the original question, which would be of
>interest.
>
>Regards, Jim
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Jim Otton
>Sent: Fri 11-Jan-02 12:19 PM
>To: BERNARD L COHEN; Dave Derenzo
>Cc: radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu
>Subject: RE: Background Radiation Information Sought
>
>Dave, Bernard, and all,
>The terrestrial gamma component to dose has been estimated for the U.S.
>by
>Joe Duval (USGS, Reston, VA). A map showing that dose and related maps
>showing the apparent concentrations (in ppm or percent) of the U, Th,
>and K
>components of that dose can be found at
>http://sedwww.cr.usgs.gov:8080/radon/DDS-9.html or
>http://energy.cr.usgs.gov/radon/radonhome.html These maps are part of
>the
>USGS' radon webpage. These maps are derived from the NURE aerorad
>dataset,
>the cosmic-source gamma component was eliminated (upward-looking
>crystals
>were used in the survey).
>
>Jim Otton
>U.S. Geological Survey
>Environmental Geology of Radionuclides
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu
>[mailto:owner-radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu]On Behalf Of BERNARD L COHEN
>Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 7:55 AM
>To: Dave Derenzo
>Cc: radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu
>Subject: Re: Background Radiation Information Sought
>
>
> My paper "Indoor radon maps of the United States" might be
>useful,
>since radon is the dominant contributor to doses from natural
radiation,
>and it varies much more than does the gamma ray background radiation.
>
>On Fri, 11 Jan 2002, Dave Derenzo wrote:
>
> > Dear Radsafers,
> >
> > In one of my training classes, I use a very old slide of a US map
with
> > average background levels for each state. The slide says the source
>of
>the
> > data was EPA. This slide does not include the radon contribution to
>the
> > ede. I would like to update this slide, but have had no luck in
>finding
> > more recent information. Can anyone point me to a reference that
has
>this
> > information on a state by state basis? I have already tried NCRP
94,
>but
> > unless I missed something, this information is not included. A
search
>of
> > the EPA web site also was not productive. Any help would be
>appreciated.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Dave Derenzo, RSO
> > University of Illinois at Chicago
> >
> >
>***********************************************************************
*
> > 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/
> >
> >
>
>***********************************************************************
*
>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/
>
>***********************************************************************
*
>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/
>
>
>
>
>
><< winmail.dat >>
_________________________________________________________________
Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
http://www.hotmail.com