[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Radon and Smoking
Kai,
I have been away from the Rn discussion for a few days. Trying to catch up.
Is the 0.9 ratio for Rn exposure in smokers' houses due to the difference in
aerosol penetration in these houses (Rn decay products attaching to larger
particles and penetrating more than smaller particles and unattached
fraction?
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
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kai Kaletsch" <info@eic.nu>
To: "BERNARD L COHEN" <blc+@PITT.EDU>; "Field, R. William"
<bill-field@UIOWA.EDU>
Cc: <radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2002 8:59 AM
Subject: Radon and Smoking
> Drs Cohen and Field,
>
> Sorry, I'm still hung up on understanding the smoking - radon
relationship.
> To me, the mechanism is all important. If it is a causal relationship, one
> would expect the 0.9 ratio of radon in smoker's houses to radon in
> non-smokers houses to become 1.0 once the smoker quits smoking. If it is
> some socio-economic effect, the 0.9 ratio would remain as long as the
> (ex)smoker remains in his/her house, regardless of current smoking status.
>
> If radon measurements for cases in a case-control study are made after the
> case quits smoking or when only non-smoking relatives are living in the
> residence, then the radon exposure assessment would overestimate the
actual
> historical radon exposure of the smoking cases. If we subtracted 10% from
> the geometric mean radon concentration of the cases (almost all ever
> smokers) in the Iowa study, the difference between cases and controls
would
> be eliminated.
>
> Dr Cohen:
>
> Do you have any data which would indicate if the smoking-radon association
> is causal or not? For example, is the radon concentration in ex-smokers
> houses similar to that in smokers homes or to that in non-smokers homes?
>
> Dr Field:
>
> Do you have the smoking status of the "ever smokers" at the time the radon
> measurements were made, or, when the case no longer lived in the
residence,
> the smoking status of the people in the house?
>
> Thank you,
>
> Kai Kaletsch
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "BERNARD L COHEN" <blc+@PITT.EDU>
> To: "Kai Kaletsch" <info@eic.nu>
> Cc: "Philippe Duport" <pduport@uottawa.ca>; "Rad health"
> <healthrad@HOTMAIL.COM>; <radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2002 11:04 AM
> Subject: Re: Re: Cohen's Fallacy
>
>
> >
> > On Mon, 28 Jan 2002, Kai Kaletsch wrote:
> >
> > > Understanding the mechanism helps you fill in gaps in the data.
Suppose
> that
> > > the relationship: "smokers have 0.9 times the radon concentration of
> > > non-smokers" is based mainly on screening measurements performed in
> > > basements. If you don't care about the "why", you might be tempted to
> > > conclude that this can be translated directly into an exposure
> relationship.
> >
> > --The 0.9 applies separately to basement measurements and to
> > living area measurements, and in both cases, to various areas of the
> > country. See my paper in Health Physics 60:631ff;1991 which also
contains
> > info on other matters discussed in this message.
>
>
> ************************************************************************
> 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/