Radon and Lung Cancer

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

TO: Howard Long (family physician and chronic disease epidemiologist)



There are differences between ionizing radiation and sunlight.  As well as 

its beneficial effects, sunlight is responsible for thousands of skin 

cancers.



Please show me even one study that demonstrates that alpha particle exposure 

to the lung decreases the incidence of lung cancer.  Dr. Becker says these 

double blind studies have already been performed but I have not seen any.



As for your other statements below, I am clueless about what you are talking 

about.  Can someone else explain his point?



Don Smith



>"Rad Health"

>  I wish your name did mean sunshine. I hope it will soon mean 

>supplementing  the deficiency of ionizing radiation that seems to afflict 

>most of the

>USA population.

>

>Please acknowledge this correction of what you said I said, below.  "FOR 

>WHATEVER REASON, selecting Iowa, the 1% outlier NOT showing significantly

>LESS lung cancer mortality with home radon 1.0 - 5.0 pCi/l, than with <0.5 

>pCi/l, does invalidate generalizing to the other 49 states from Iowa.

>You seem to agree that Iowa is different.

>

>Only a double-blind, placebo study with reproducable results can prove that 

>radiation IN THAT DOSE causes (or  prevents) cancer. Let's do it. .

>

>Howard Long

>

>PS I met Muckerheide at a Doctors for Disaster Preparedness meeting. 

>Expansion of his comments like those here was well received as consitent 

>with the

>experiences of the dozens of independent scientists there. That tape is 

>available from jersnav@mindspring .com.

>

>Rad health wrote:

>

> > Jim and Howard,

> >

> > Do you guys go to the same school of spin?

> >

> > Your statements are not very credible, but they make amusing reading.

> >

> > First Howard states that Iowa was chosen as the study site for the Iowa

> > Radon Lung Cancer Study because it was one of the few states in Cohen's

> > ecologic studies that did not have a large inverse relationship.  When 

>in

> > fact we know it was chosen 1) because of its high quality NCI SEER 

>Registry

> > (http://www.pmeh.uiowa.edu/shri/), 2) high radon source strength, 3) low

> > subject mobility (people live in the same house a long time), and 4)

> > experienced team of investigators.  The Iowa Radon Lung Cancer Study

> > proposal went through peer review by NIEHS prior to funding.  The 

>reviewers

> > (who likely never read Cohen's studies since they do not appear in

> > epidemiology journals) were likely not associated with BEIR (NAS) or the

> > EPA.

> >

> > Second, Jim says the National Academy of Science convened the BEIR VI 

>group

> > to discredit Cohen's ecologic studies?  Why, even Bernie says his 

>studies

> > can not determine the risk posed by radon exposure. Jim isn't it a bit 

>of a

> > reach to think that the BEIR VI Committee was formed just to refute 

>Cohen

> > ecologic studies?

> >

> > This would make a good (well maybe not) TV show.  Who could play the 

>various

> > parts?

> >

> > And what are you talking about, the range of results equal 0, what 

>results?

> >

> > Don Smith





_________________________________________________________________

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/