[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
radon
Jim -
I think you are a bit naive on this issue. Each individual in the whole
state of Iowa does NOT have a high radon exposure. Look at the Iowa paper
(read beyond the abstract), almost half have radon concentrations below 150
Bq/m3. If you were comparing the state of Hawaii to Iowa, you could say -
compared to Hawaii, Iowa has a lot more radon. But, in reality because it
is a case-control study, the study looked at individual exposures among a
group of people. The median exposure is higher for Iowa, and that is what
you want, a nice distribution of exposures. I always thought it made sense
to perform studies of possible toxins where the source strength was the
highest. And Iowa has the highest source strength to test whether or not
residential radon poses a hazard. It makes no sense to perform a radon test
in a state where there is no radon. It is my understanding no more radon
case-control studies will be funded in the U.S. Iowa and Missouri are
apparently pooling their studies and then we will have the results of the
National and International poolings. Dan Krewski is pooling the N. American
studies. He is on the Belle advisory comm so he is not one of your so
called LNT mafia.
When agencies fund case-control studies like the Iowa study they make sure
their sample size has the required power to detect an association if one
exists. I agree that it is quality of data we should strive for and not
quantity of data.
Les
>From: "Jim Muckerheide" <jmuckerheide@cnts.wpi.edu>
>To: "Les Crable" <lescrable@hotmail.com>, <jkotton@usgs.gov>
>CC: <radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu>
>Subject: RE: Background Radiation Information Sought
>Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 17:51:07 -0500
>
>-----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
>
>
>
>
><< winmail.dat >>
_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
************************************************************************
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/