Re: Lung cancer mortality from radon versus mortality from othercancers

[Tom Mohaupt <tom.mohaupt@WRIGHT.EDU>]

Group,

Also note that BEIR VI points out that IF everyone reduced their radon

levels below the EPA action level, the number of cancer deaths from radon

would drop only by 1/3 (if the model is correct). This is because most lung

cancers imputed to radon are from: 

(1) The synergistic effects from smoking. Note that people who smoke and

have high radon levels would lower their radon risk more by cutting out one

cigarette a day than reducing radon.

(2) Most of those projected lung cancer deaths are due to radon levels LESS

THAN the EPA action level. The LNT takes the risk all the way to zero. The

attributed risks values in this region are very small, but they are

multiplied by a very large population. Hence, big numbers of imputed

deaths.



Notice that no one has talked about evaluating the effectiveness of the

radon program. It's a multibillion dollar program with no effort designed

to see if it really saved 3000 to 35,000 lives. Why?



Lastly, of those 19,000 cancer deaths imputed to radon exposures, how many

are assigned to each of the groups below:

0-100 Bq/m^3:

100-150 Bq/m^3:

150-200 Bq/m^3:

200-400 Bq/m^3:

400-800 Bq/m^3:

800-1200 Bq/m^3:

>1200 Bq/m^3:

The calculations for these groups would have had to be done to calculate

the 19,000 value. 



Tom



Rad health wrote:

> 

> Patricia,

> 

> At the recent ARRST/CRCPD International Radon Meeting http://www.aarst.org/

> in Daytona Beach, Dr. Field pointed out that if the BEIR VI predictions are

> accurate.  These 19,000 cancer deaths from radon exceed the total number of

> cancer deaths for many forms of cancers.  You may be surprised if you check

> how many cancer deaths there are from the following cancers: brain, breast,

> prostate, bone, etc. each year.

> 

> Don Smith

> 

> >From: "Patricia Milligan" <PXM@nrc.gov>

> 

> Possibly, quite possibly, the radiological and chemical insults to our

> bodies over the thousands of years is what directed our course of evolution.

>   One would reasonably expect, given LNT and the large number of people in

> the world, that the background cancer rate would be enormous.  In fact, they

> are not.  As we know and has been told to us by the AMerican Cancer Society,

> approximately 2/3 of the cancers in the US are "lifestyle" related cancers.

>     Perhaps its time to consider that the  emperor may need a different set

> of clothes.  At the very least, it is important to keep an open mind and

> challenge the status quo.

> 

> _________________________________________________________________

> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.

> 

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

> 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/



-- 

Thomas Mohaupt, M.S., CHP

University Radiation Safety Officer



104 Health Sciences Bldg

Wright State University

Dayton, Ohio 45435

tom.mohaupt@wright.edu

(937) 775-2169

(937) 775-3761 (fax)



"An investment in knowledge gains the best interest." Ben Franklin

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

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/