Re: Rn and non-Rn doses in U mines

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

I have obviously not seen the paper, but how do you make the assumption that 

the risk is OVER estimated.  If you have increased exposure 

misclassification that would bias the results toward seeing no association 

so in fact, the risk may be underestimated.  This is not clear since no 

details are provided.



I think BEIR has addressed concerns regarding other agents that may be 

causing lung cancer in mines and have addressed the issues of missing data.



Nonetheless, you have to look at all the evidence to indicate residential 

radon causes cancer and that makes the residential radon studies and the 

future pooling that much more important.



Don Smith



>From: "Philippe Duport" <pduport@uottawa.ca>

>To: "Sonter Mark" <sonterm@EPA.NSW.GOV.AU>,        "'Rad health'" 

><healthrad@HOTMAIL.COM>, <radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu>

>Subject: Rn and non-Rn doses in U mines

>Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 11:16:51 -0500

>MIME-Version: 1.0

>Received: from [137.122.6.40] by hotmail.com (3.2) with ESMTP id 

>MHotMailBE119585005C4004318B897A0628A6840; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 08:17:10 -0800

>Received: from pduport ([137.122.142.40])by alfred.cc.uottawa.ca 

>(8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id LAA07760;Fri, 18 Jan 2002 11:16:52 -0500

>From pduport@uottawa.ca Fri, 18 Jan 2002 08:19:07 -0800

>Message-ID: <086201c1a03b$89ef71d0$288e7a89@pduport>

>X-Priority: 3

>X-MSMail-Priority: Normal

>X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000

>X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000

>

>Rn risk in mines.

>

>In my previous posting (earlier today), I alluded to doses received by U 

>miners from sources other than Rn progeny and their role in a systematic 

>overestimation of radon risk.  I have just been notified that I can quote 

>my paper "Is the radon risk overestimated? Neglected doses in the 

>estimation of the risk of lung cancer in uranium underground miners", which 

>has just been accepted for publication in Radiation Protection Dosimetry.  

>It will probably be published in Radiation Protection Dosimetry Vol 98 No 3 

>in March 2002.  I tried to show that radon progeny contribute sometimes as 

>little as 25% of the total lung dose and rarely contribute more than 50 or 

>60%.  Rn risk is systematically overestimated, once by neglecting lung 

>non-Rn lung doses - which can be, in some mines, estimated numerically, and 

>once more by neglecting doses received in mines other than that considered 

>in each specific cohort, which much more difficult to estimate numerically 

>by can be many-fold when the duration of employment is of the order of the 

>year.  Both neglected non-Rn doses and other-mine doses contribute to 

>overestimating Rn risk.  This should be taken into account by those who 

>extrapolate risk down to zero exposure.

>

>

>Philippe Duport

>International Centre for Low Dose Radiation Research

>University of Ottawa

>555 King Edward Ave.

>Ottawa, ON, Canada, K1N 6N5

>Tel: (613) 562 5800, ext. 1270

>pduport@uottawa.ca





_________________________________________________________________

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/