Re: radon - documentation of exposure histories for Iowa study

["Rad health" <healthrad@HOTMAIL.COM>]

Dr. Long,



I am not sure how much epidemiology you took in school, but it appears you 

never got past the chapter on double blind clinical trials.  I have no idea 

what you are talking about.



By the way, if you are such a critic of everyone else, what is keeping you 

from performing your own studies (double blind of course)?



Truly,

Don Nelson Epidemiologist

Don Smith Epidemiologist



>From: hflong@postoffice.pacbell.net

>Reply-To: hflong@postoffice.pacbell.net

>To: Rad health <healthrad@HOTMAIL.COM>

>CC: radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu

>Subject: Re: radon - documentation of exposure histories for Iowa study

>Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 16:19:04 -0800

>

>  "Association". So  431 cases of lung cancer (86% smokers, therefore only 

>58 non-smokers) had more radon in their homes than "controls", (only 32% of

>whom smoked). "Adjustment" statistically, is to replace data from truly 

>matched "controls"?! Why bother with double-blind placebo tests, with such

>great effort to truly match controls?

>

>And that presumption was in the 1% exception in a nationwide study with 

>100,000 deaths from lung cancer not showing INVERSE association with home

>radon. You infer to the total population of the USA from a selected, 1% 

>outlier (which could have had silo poisoning or other unknown

>common to both smokers and radon level)?

>

>  Why not properly control, with all smokers or all non-smokers, instead of 

>trusting in select statistical "adjustment"? "Difficult" - an admission of

>numbers too small to properly match controls - as in the NSWS with >4,000 

>cancer deaths, that showed  25% better cancer resistance with >.5 rem than

><.1 rem (according to its TAC member, John Cameron).

>

>Howard Long

>

>Rad health wrote:

>

> > Jim Muckerheide,

> >

> > Ray Johnson may not be an epidemiologist, but the point was that Ray 

>knows a

> > few things about radon exposure assessment.  As far as Phillipe Dupont, 

>he

> > is a frequent poster of emails on your Radiation and Science listserv 

>and an

> > known anti LNT proponent.

> >

> > If the Iowa study did not find an association, then they may have said 

>the

> > power was insufficient to detect an association as is likely the case in

> > many studies with poor exposure ascertainment.  But, the Iowa study did 

>find

> > an association so therefore the sample size was of sufficient power to

> > detect an association.

> >

> > I saw your "explanation" given to Les.  It was nonsensical to me as it

> > apparently was to Les.  As far as your misrepresentations, I am not sure

> > where to start.  The latest item you have tried to mislead people with 

>is

> > that the Iowa Study did not obtain individual exposure histories for 

>each

> > subject. Your insistence is that because someone lives in Iowa, that 

>have to

> > be exposed to high radon levels.  As Les, pointed out.  In the Iowa 

>study

> > half, the people in the study were exposed to less than 4 pCi/L (average

> > 15--year exposure).  Their exposure data was log normally distributed 

>(that

> > means they had a lot of data for lower exposed individuals).

> >

> > The Iowa study did an incredible job documenting individual exposure

> > including many supporting papers as Les has pointed out to me.  On one 

>hand

> > we have your misrepresentation and on the other hand we have these 

>detailed

> > papers below laying out how they accounted for radon exposure.

> >

> > ------------------------------------------

> > Citation: Field RW, Smith BJ, Brus CP, Lynch CF, Neuberger JS, Steck DJ,

> > Retrospective temporal and spatial mobility of adult Iowa women., Risk 

>Anal

> > 18: 5, 575-84, Oct, 1998.

> >

> > Abstract

> > Human exposure assessments require a linkage between toxicant 

>concentrations

> > in occupied spaces and the receptor's mobility pattern. Databases 

>reporting

> > distinct populations' mobility in various parts of the home, time 

>outside

> > the home, and time in another building are scarce. Temporal longitudinal

> > trends in these mobility patterns for specific age and gender groups are

> > nonexistent. This paper describes subgroup trends in the spatial and

> > temporal mobility patterns within the home, outside the home, and in 

>another

> > building for 619 Iowa females that occupied the same home for at least 

>20

> > years. The study found that the mean time spent at home for the 

>participants

> > ranged from a low of 69.4% for the 50-59 year age group to a high of 

>81.6%

> > for the over 80-year-old age group. Participants who lived in either 

>one- or

> > two- story homes with basements spent the majority of their residential

> > occupancy on the first story. Trends across age varied for other 

>subgroups

> > by number of children, education, and urban/rural status. Since all of 

>these

> > trends were nonlinear, they indicate that error exists when assuming a

> > constant, such as a 75% home occupancy factor, which has been advocated 

>by

> > some researchers and agencies. In addition, while aggregate data, such 

>as

> > presented in this report, are more helpful in deriving risk estimates 

>for

> > population subgroups, they cannot supplant good individual-level data 

>for

> > determining risks.

> >

> > ------------------------------------------------------------

> >

> > Medline ID: 21270976

> >

> > Citation: Field RW, Steck DJ, Smith BJ, Brus CP, Fisher EF, Neuberger 

>JS,

> > Lynch CF, The Iowa radon lung cancer study--phase I: Residential radon 

>gas

> > exposure and lung cancer., Sci Total Environ 272: 1-3, 67-72, May14, 

>2001.

> >

> > Abstract

> > Exposure to high concentrations of radon (222Rn) progeny produces lung

> > cancer in both underground miners and experimentally-exposed laboratory

> > animals. The goal of the study was to determine whether or not 

>residential

> > radon exposure exhibits a statistically significant association with 

>lung

> > cancer in a state with high residential radon concentrations. A

> > population-based, case-control epidemiologic study was conducted 

>examining

> > the relationship between residential radon gas exposure and lung cancer 

>in

> > Iowa females who occupied their current home for at least 20 years. The

> > study included 413 incident lung cancer cases and 614 

>age-frequency-matched

> > controls. Participant information was obtained by a mailed-out 

>questionnaire

> > with face-to-face follow-up. Radon dosimetry assessment consisted of 

>five

> > components: (1) on-site residential assessment survey; (2) on-site radon

> > measurements; (3) regional outdoor radon measurements; (4) assessment of

> > subjects' exposure when in another building; and (5) linkage of historic

> > subject mobility with residential, outdoor, and other building radon

> > concentrations. Histologic review was performed for 96% of the cases.

> > Approximately 60% of the basement radon concentrations and 30% of the 

>first

> > floor radon concentrations of study participants' homes exceeded the US

> > Environmental Protection Agency action level of 150 Bq m(-3) (4 pCi 

>l(-1)).

> > Large areas of western Iowa had outdoor radon concentrations comparable 

>to

> > the national average indoor value of 55 Bq m(-3) (1.5 pCi l(-1)). Excess

> > odds of 0.24 (95% CI = -0.05-0.92) and 0.49 (95% CI = 0.03-1.84) per 11

> > WLM(5-19) were calculated using the continuous radon exposure estimates 

>for

> > all cases and live cases, respectively. Slightly higher excess odds of 

>0.50

> > (95% CI = 0.004-1.80) and 0.83 (CI = 0.11-3.34) per 11 WLM(5-19) were 

>noted

> > for the categorical radon exposure estimates for all cases and the live

> > cases. A positive association between cumulative radon gas exposure and 

>lung

> > cancer was demonstrated using both categorical and continuous analyses. 

>The

> > risk estimates obtained in this study indicate that cumulative radon

> > exposure presents an important environmental health hazard.

> >

> > ----------------------------------------------------------------

> >   Environmental Health Perspectives Volume 107, Number 11, November 1999

> >

> > Intercomparison of Retrospective Radon Detectors

> > R. William Field,1 Daniel J. Steck,2 Mary Ann Parkhurst,3 Judy A. 

>Mahaffey,3

> > and Michael C.R. Alavanja4

> >

> > 1Department of Epidemiology, College of Public Health, University of 

>Iowa,

> > Iowa City, Iowa, USA

> > 2Physics Department, St. John's University, Collegeville, Minnesota, USA

> > 3Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, Washington, USA

> > 4National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland, USA

> >

> > Abstract

> > We performed both a laboratory and a field intercomparison of two novel

> > glass-based retrospective radon detectors previously used in major radon

> > case-control studies performed in Missouri and Iowa. The new detectors

> > estimate retrospective residential radon exposure from the accumulation 

>of a

> > long-lived radon decay product, 210Pb, in glass. The detectors use track

> > registration material in direct contact with glass surfaces to measure 

>the

> > -emission of a 210Pb-decay product, 210Po. The detector's track density

> > generation rate (tracks per square centimeter per hour) is proportional 

>to

> > the surface -activity. In the absence of other strong sources of 

>-emission

> > in the glass, the implanted surface -activity should be proportional to 

>the

> > accumulated 210Po, and hence to the cumulative radon gas exposure. The 

>goals

> > of the intercomparison were to a) perform collocated measurements using 

>two

> > different glass-based retrospective radon detectors in a controlled

> > laboratory environment to compare their relative response to implanted

> > polonium in the absence of environmental variation, b) perform 

>collocated

> > measurements using two different retrospective radon progeny detectors 

>in a

> > variety of residential settings to compare their detection of

> > glass-implanted polonium activities, and c) examine the correlation 

>between

> > track density rates and contemporary radon gas concentrations. The

> > laboratory results suggested that the materials and methods used by the

> > studies produced similar track densities in detectors exposed to the 

>same

> > implanted 210Po activity. The field phase of the intercomparison found

> > excellent agreement between the track density rates for the two types of

> > retrospective detectors. The correlation between the track density rates 

>and

> > direct contemporary radon concentration measurements was relatively 

>high,

> > considering that no adjustments were performed to account for either the

> > residential depositional environment or glass surface type. Preliminary

> > comparisons of the models used to translate track rate densities to 

>average

> > long-term radon concentrations differ between the two studies. Further

> > calibration of the retrospective detectors' models for interpretation of

> > track rate density may allow the pooling of studies that use glass-based

> > retrospective radon detectors to determine historic residential radon

> > exposures. Key words: case-control studies, dose-response relationship

> > (radiation), epidemiologic methods, epidemiologic studies, lung 

>neoplasms,

> > radon, radon progeny, smoking. Environ Health Perspect 107:905-910 

>(1999).

> > [Online 15 October 1999]

> > http://ehpnet1.niehs.nih.gov/docs/1999/107p905-910field/abstract.html

> > Address correspondence to R.W. Field, College of Public Health, 

>Department

> > of Epidemiology, N222 Oakdale Hall, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA 

>52242

> > USA. Telephone: (319) 335-4413. Fax: (319) 335-4747. E-mail:

> > bill-field@uiowa.edu

> > We thank J. Huber, C. Greaves, G. Buckner, J. Jesse, and E. Berger for 

>their

> > assistance with data collection. We also thank C. Lynch and J. Lubin for

> > their reviews of previous versions of this manuscript.

> >

> > NCI contract 263-MQ-820009 and NIEHS grant P30 ESO5605 supported this

> > research. This report is solely the responsibility of the authors and 

>does

> > not necessarily reflect the official views of the NCI, NIEHS, or NIH.

> >

> > ----------------------------------------------------------------

> > Medline ID: 99122934

> >

> > Citation: Steck DJ, Field RW, Lynch CF, Exposure to atmospheric radon.,

> > Environ Health Perspect 107: 2, 123-7, Feb, 1999.

> > Address: Department of Physics

> >

> > Abstract

> > We measured radon (222Rn) concentrations in Iowa and Minnesota and found

> > that unusually high annual average radon concentrations occur outdoors 

>in

> > portions of central North America. In some areas, outdoor concentrations

> > exceed the national average indoor radon concentration. The general 

>spatial

> > patterns of outdoor radon and indoor radon are similar to the spatial

> > distribution of radon progeny in the soil. Outdoor radon exposure in 

>this

> > region can be a substantial fraction of an individual's total radon 

>exposure

> > and is highly variable across the population. Estimated lifetime 

>effective

> > dose equivalents for the women participants in a radon-related lung 

>cancer

> > study varied by a factor of two at the median dose, 8 mSv, and ranged up 

>to

> > 60 mSv (6 rem). Failure to include these doses can reduce the 

>statistical

> > power of epidemiologic studies that examine the lung cancer risk 

>associated

> > with residential radon exposure.

> > -----------------------------------

> >

> > Medline ID: 99005221

> > Citation: Fisher EL, Field RW, Smith BJ, Lynch CF, Steck DJ, Neuberger 

>JS,

> > Spatial variation of residential radon concentrations: the Iowa Radon 

>Lung

> > Cancer Study., Health Phys 75: 5, 506-13, Nov, 1998.

> >

> > Abstract

> > Homeowners and researchers frequently estimate the radon concentrations 

>in

> > various areas of the home from a single radon measurement often 

>performed in

> > the home's basement. This study describes the spatial variation of radon

> > concentrations both between floors and between rooms on the same floor. 

>The

> > geometric mean basement and first floor radon concentrations for 

>one-story

> > homes were 13.8% and 9.0% higher, respectively, as compared to their

> > counterparts in two-story homes. The median first floor/basement ratio 

>of

> > radon concentrations for one-story homes was 0.60. The median ratios 

>between

> > first floor/basement and second floor/basement for two-story homes were 

>0.51

> > and 0.62, respectively. The mean coefficient of variation for detectors

> > placed on the same floor was 9.5%, which was only 2.6% higher than the 

>mean

> > coefficient of variation found for collocated (duplicate) quality 

>control

> > detectors. The wide individual variations noted in radon concentrations

> > serve as a reminder of the importance of performing multiple radon

> > measurements in various parts of the home when estimating home radon

> > concentrations.

> >

> > -------------------------------------------------------

> > Field, R.W., Lynch, C.F., Steck, D.J. and Fisher, E.F.. Dosimetry 

>Quality

> > assurance: the Iowa residential radon lung cancer study. Radiation

> > Protection Dosimetry. 78(4): 295-303, 1998

> >

> > -----------------------------------------------

> > Medline ID: 96384408

> > Citation: Field RW, Steck DJ, Lynch CF, Brus CP, Neuberger JS, Kross BC,

> > Residential radon-222 exposure and lung cancer: exposure assessment

> > methodology., J Expo Anal Environ Epidemiol 6: 2, 181-95, Apr-Jun, 1996.

> >

> > Abstract

> > Although occupational epidemiological studies and animal experimentation

> > provide strong evidence that radon-222 (222Rn) progeny exposure causes 

>lung

> > cancer, residential epidemiological studies have not confirmed this

> > association. Past residential epidemiological studies have yielded

> > contradictory findings. Exposure misclassification has seriously 

>compromised

> > the ability of these studies to detect whether an association exists 

>between

> > 222Rn exposure and lung cancer. Misclassification of 222Rn exposure has

> > arisen primarily from: 1) detector measurement error; 2) failure to 

>consider

> > temporal and spatial 222Rn variations within a home; 3) missing data 

>from

> > previously occupied homes that currently are inaccessible; 4) failure to

> > link 222Rn concentrations with subject mobility; and 5) measuring 222Rn 

>gas

> > concentration as a surrogate for 222Rn progeny exposure. This paper 

>examines

> > these methodological dosimetry problems and addresses how we are 

>accounting

> > for them in an ongoing, population-based, case-control study of 222Rn 

>and

> > lung cancer in Iowa.

> >

> > --------------------------------------------

> >

> > Medline ID: 20329535

> > Citation: Field RW, Steck DJ, Smith BJ, Brus CP, Fisher EL, Neuberger 

>JS,

> > Platz CE, Robinson RA, Woolson RF, Lynch CF, Residential radon gas 

>exposure

> > and lung cancer: the Iowa Radon Lung Cancer Study., Am J Epidemiol 151: 

>11,

> > 1091-102, Jun1, 2000.

> >

> > Abstract

> > Exposure to high concentrations of radon progeny (radon) produces lung

> > cancer in both underground miners and experimentally exposed laboratory

> > animals. To determine the risk posed by residential radon exposure, the

> > authors performed a population-based, case-control epidemiologic study 

>in

> > Iowa from 1993 to 1997. Subjects were female Iowa residents who had 

>occupied

> > their current home for at least 20 years. A total of 413 lung cancer 

>cases

> > and 614 age-frequency-matched controls were included in the final 

>analysis.

> > Excess odds were calculated per 11 working-level months for exposures 

>that

> > occurred 5-19 years (WLM(5-19)) prior to diagnosis for cases or prior to

> > time of interview for controls. Eleven WLM(5-19) is approximately equal 

>to

> > an average residential radon exposure of 4 pCl/liter (148 Bq/m3) during 

>this

> > period. After adjustment for age, smoking, and education, the authors 

>found

> > excess odds of 0.50 (95% confidence interval: 0.004, 1.81) and 0.83 (95%

> > percent confidence interval: 0.11, 3.34) using categorical radon 

>exposure

> > estimates for all cases and for live cases, respectively. Slightly lower

> > excess odds of 0.24 (95 percent confidence interval: -0.05, 0.92) and 

>0.49

> > (95 percent confidence interval: 0.03, 1.84) per 11 WLM(5-19) were noted 

>for

> > continuous radon exposure estimates for all subjects and live subjects 

>only.

> > The observed risk estimates suggest that cumulative ambient radon 

>exposure

> > presents an important environmental health hazard.

> >

> > Don Smith

> >

> > ----------------------------------------------

> > >From: "Jim Muckerheide" <jmuckerheide@cnts.wpi.edu>

> > >To: "Rad health" <healthrad@hotmail.com>, <lescrable@hotmail.com>,

> > ><jkotton@usgs.gov>

> > >CC: <radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu>

> > >Subject: RE: radon - and tackling the issues

> > >Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 04:11:47 -0500

> > >

> > You haven't read, or perhaps understood, the problem. See the

> > explanation provided to Les. If you think something is "misleading," let 

>me

> > know. It's just my take on the failure of radon case-control studies.

> >

> > And why Iowa is the worst place, despite Field's efforts to relate a

> > lifetime of radon exposure to house measurements. It just can't work,

> > and the study is too small to produce a credible, replicable result.

> >

> > Ray's a great guy, but his forte is HP training, and communication. If

> > you want an expert on radon health effects try Philippe Duport at U

> > Ottawa, with 40 years originally focused on the French miners and the

> > industry, then to Canada, as a regulator, and nor at the university. No

> > adverse radon effects at low-dose, low dose-rate, at much higher than

> >

> > _________________________________________________________________

> > MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:

> > http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx

> >

> > ************************************************************************

> > 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/

>





_________________________________________________________________

MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: 

http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx



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

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/