[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: radon
Jim,
I signed off the listserv. I was very tired of your pontificating and
insulting posts. For a nuclear engineer, you sure act as if you are an
expert in all fields.
I am sure I am not the first person to sign off because of your behavior.
Les Crable
>From: "Jim Muckerheide" <jmuckerheide@cnts.wpi.edu>
>To: "Les Crable" <lescrable@hotmail.com>, <jkotton@usgs.gov>
>CC: <radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu>
>Subject: RE: radon
>Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 23:22:57 -0500
>
>Your comment just shows lack of understanding. :-( Your "each
>individual" dose is not valid. You didn't read or understood the
>problem, or arithmetic. Your "individual dose data" doesn't reflect
>individual doses, especially in Iowa where the "low-dose" people live in
>a high-dose region. So the data is likely near junk since the data base
>is so small. Therefore "case-control" results of this small group near
>random. Do a second replicate in Iowa, you'll get another random answer
>(except that the errors will also tend to the null). This kind of
>non-numerate "argument" seems to be endemic with apologists for rad
>protection and falsification of science.
>
>You aren't close to "quality of data," but that won't stop the
>desperate.
>
>And Dan Krewski produced the BEIR VI travesty!? Simple dissembling
>disinformation to con the politicians. As noted before, honest epi's
>fear for their careers to challenge such crap.
>
>It was especially telling that when the BEIR VI Committee was asked by
>the media at their press conference if any of them had had their homes
>measured for radon, after a long pause one said (think it was Roger
>McClellan) "well my home is in a low radon area -- and I don't smoke."
>
>Your confidence in "the agencies" is rather quaint. You seem to ignore
>the dozens/hundreds of specific actions that suppress programs and
>publication and ignore the data in front of them when they "serve" on
>prestgious committees that reward them well! Are you just uninformed and
>not very rigorous about science? or ?
>
>Jim
>===
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Les Crable
>Sent: Mon 14-Jan-02 6:52 PM
>To: Jim Muckerheide; jkotton@usgs.gov
>Cc: radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu
>Subject: 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
>
>
>
>
><< winmail.dat >>
_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx