[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Koop and radon
A good book on the making of Radon policy is "Radon's Deadly Daughters:
Science, Environmental Policy, and Politics of Risk", written by M.
Edelstein (a Psycologist) and W. Makofske (a Physicist), published in 1998.
It offers a very good historical account, although my conclusions from the
book were often opposite of the authors.
A quote from Richard Guimond, a Public Health Service officer assigned to
the EPA who spearheaded the radon program: "Environmental issues generally
require some advocate to force the issue to be selected. The advocates are
usually public interest groups, legislators, victims groups or attorneys.
What is unique about radon is that EPA advocated an issue that did not have
a great constituency outside the agency."
A quote from the book, p. 53: ".. Guimond was quick to realize the
implication of the Watras incident. From the onset, he became the driving
force behind the very construction of the indoor radon issue. There is
reason to believe that geologic radon might never have surfaced as a major
issue had it not been for Guimond's tutelage. The SELLING of the radon
issue to an initially hostile administration reflected moxie in using the
media, tailoring programs, and currying support of the right allies at
crucial junctures. Recognizing the overwhelming resistance to creating
another Superfund-type program in the early Reagan period, Guimond
pragmatically crafted a politically acceptable response to radon. The
program was deliberately made modest so as to not run afoul of the OMB.
Radon's pragmatic quality-that it can be defined as a blameless natural
occurrence having great risk-was played up. Furthermore, radon could be
seen as a private problem beyond the scope of regulation."
[Note #1: The EPA and DOE were both trying to take control of radon issues.
The DOE wanted 20 pCi/L to be the action level. {Advantage: only a few
thousand houses to mitigate. Disadvantage: who pays for mitigation. Cost
for mitigation was about $20,000 per house.} The EPA wanted a 4 pCi/L
action level. {Advantage: 25% of US houses projected to be above this
level, making mitigation viable for private businesses. Homeowners pay for
mitigation. The cost is much less (about $2,000 per house) because of
higher numbers. No federal government money involved except for information
pamphlets and TV ads.}]
[Note #2: The first EPA pamphlet on radon set lung cancer projections from
radon based on smoking synergism for everyone, including non smokers. The
second pamphlet (written in the early 1990's) separates lung cancer
projections for smokers and non-smokers. (In my opinion, the first pamphlet
was based on a false and intentionally alarming premise.)]
[Note #3: Stanley Watras was the NPP worker who set off alarms at the
Limerick NNP when leaving. His house had 22 working levels (4,400 pCi/L) of
radon. Mitigation paid for by the Limerick NPP cost $40,000. Mr. and Mrs.
Watras each have a 50% chance of developing lung cancer according to EPA
estimates. Stanley Watras went into the radon mitigation business and has
been very successful. As of the publication of the book, he was doing very
well.]
[Note #4: One error in the book was that animal data showed lung cancer in
rats down to a few pCi/L. Such a idea might be true if rats lived to be 75
years old. A significant miscalculation.]
Tom
Rad health wrote:
>
> Dr. Cohen,
>
> I don't understand your point. If it was made directly from him or his
> office, it had his support and blessing didn't it? The EPA, The U.S.
> Surgeon General, NIOSH, The American Lung Association, The American Cancer
> Society, The World Health Organization, The Consumers Union, The National
> Research Council's Committee on the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation
> and The American Medical Association all agree that residential radon
> exposure is a risk factor for lung cancer.
>
> >From: BERNARD L COHEN <blc+@pitt.edu>
> >To: Rad health <healthrad@hotmail.com>
> >CC: RuthWeiner@AOL.COM, hflong@pacbell.net, tm.mohaupt@WRIGHT.EDU,
> >muckerheide@MEDIAONE.NET, internet RADSAFE <radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu>
> >Subject: Re: Iowa GIGO, not Cohen's "Fallacy"
> >Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 13:32:14 -0500 (EST)
> >
> > --At least the initial announcement that got all of the publicity
> >-- high on network evening news, front page on newspapers, etc -- was not
> >made by Koop himself. I was heavily involved in the situation at that time
> >and remember it vividly.
> >
> >
> >On Thu, 31 Jan 2002, Rad health wrote:
> >
> > > Koop issued the proclamation and in fact has blamed most of the
> >carcinogenic
> > > effects of smoking on polonium.
> >
> > > >From: BERNARD L COHEN <blc+@pitt.edu>
> > > > > What Surgeon General and when, please? I am afraid I don't remember
> >any
> > > >such
> > > > > pronouncement.
> > > >
> > > > --It was roughly in September 1988. Koop was the Surgeon-General
> > > >but he did not make the statement; it was issued by his office. It got
> > > >very wide national publicity and served as a tremendous stimulant to
> >the
> > > >radon measurement business, albeit for a short time.
> >
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.
--
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/