Re: Radon Health Risks

[Kai Kaletsch <info@eic.nu>]

Bill an Don,



Colorado Plateau:

"...the 1950 cohort reported work in a total of 937 of the mines, for a

total of 5274 distinct mine-years. Of these mines, 567 had at least one

actual measurement, but the measurements only covered a total of 1959 (37%)

of the mine years..."



(That means zero measurements for 1/3 of the mines and 2/3 of the mine

years.)



...Reanalysis of lung cancer mortality...HP V77 No3 pg 266 Sept 99



After 1952 they tried to systematically take measurements, but the frequency

still left something to be desired. A mine is not a static place like a

house. The very nature of mining causes the mine to change. If you only come

back every year or so to take a measurement you will likely not find the

same mine.



The study did try to track the movement of individuals between mines (so

technically it is not ecological), but what purpose does it serve to track

people going between mines when the variation of radon levels within a mine

is greater than the variation of radon levels between different mines? (This

is certainly true in today's mines and I would suspect it was true, maybe to

a lesser extent, back then.)



This is not a problem that requires a letter to the editor. Everyone is

familiar with the limitations of the early studies. They cannot be re-done,

so we have to live with them.



Another way to test the validity of the studies is to look at the range of

the results. The very large range for ERR/WLM in the miner studies indicates

that: 1) The theory is wrong or 2) there were some systematic influences

(that is what Philippe is looking at) or 3) the dose assignments are

incorrect by much more than anyone is currently imagining.



Just because any given data point is not rock solid, does not mean it should

be thrown out. The observation that miners in the Colorado Plateau were

dying from lung cancer needs an explanation. The observation that people

living near the coast have higher levels of lung cancer needs an

explanation.



As far as the case control studies are concerned: I don't know how to

interpret the scatter plot of results of various studies for relative risk

for radon in homes.

I can't see any pattern.



Anyway, I should probably do some work one of these days and will have to

leave the discussion for a while.



Best Regards,



Kai





----- Original Message -----

From: "field" <bill-field@UIOWA.EDU>

To: "RadSafe" <radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu>

Sent: Sunday, January 20, 2002 1:36 AM

Subject: Fw: Radon Health Risks





>

>

>

> Kai,

>

> Sorry, I forarded his message without adding my comments.  Could you

> provide more documentation of when and where only 1 test was performed to

> document exposure to a large cohort of miners?  Bill Field

>

>

>  Kai,

>

>  If  there are problems you think should be documented than you should

> write a letter to the editor as soon as the article is published.  In most

> cases, I do believe more than one measurement was performed.

>

>  Nonetheless, I personally prefer the case-control residential studies -

no

>  extrapolation and more control of confounding.

>

>  Don

>

>

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

> 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/