Re: The "R" word is now junk mail

[RuthWeiner@aol.com]

Thank you, Mike.  The radon issue is extremely important and I follow it with great interest.  I am not an epidemiologiust, and I tend to apply a sort of "scientific common sense " to these questions.  The projection of tens of thousands of fatal cancers caused by radon in homes doesn't make much sense to me and never did (though I might say that proper ventilation is a good thing no matter what).  I thought at one time that the statistics on miner exposure were telling, and then I read Dr. Duport's statement about how often mine radon was measured and the variation in measurement, and I found that really informative.


EPA's position on radon is similar to the position on PM2.5, which is very shaky from both the common sense and scientific point of view.  The EPA position on lowering the arsenic standard in drinking water strikes me as questionable also.  At a time when the very real and important provisions of the Clean Air Act are under attack, EPA needs to be very carefuly about its science, and not let it fall victim to an extreme enviro agenda (I don't know what else to call it).  


Finally, I, for one, read the radon posts with great interest.  I do have a couple of questions: (1) what agency funded the Iowa Study?  (2) Is the BEIR Committee aware of the criticisms of BEIR VI?  Do they respond?  In what venue?


Again, Mike, thank you and let's keep the radon discussion.


Ruth


Ruth Weiner, Ph. D.

ruthweiner@aol.com