[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Precautionary Principle Applied to Lung Cancer Risk CausedbyResidential...
I noticed that smoking is excluded from the list. Since the list appears to
be generally applied to homes as well as commercial and government
structures, I'm surprised to see it not included, notwithstanding holding
the No. 1 spot.
Tom
epirad@mchsi.com wrote:
>
> Ruth,
>
> Many federal and State health officials do feel radon
> exposure presents a greater risk than many other
> environmental exposures.
>
> For example, see:
>
> Rev Environ Health 2000 Jul-Sep;15(3):273-87
>
> A review of health-based comparative risk assessments in
> the United States.
>
> Johnson BL.
>
> Adjunct Faculty, Department of Environmental and
> Occupational Health, Rollins School of Public Health,
> Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia 30322, USA.
>
> Comparing the risks posed by specific environmental
> hazards has become attractive to policy makers and
> legislative bodies as an aid to budgeting and other
> policy decisions. This paper reviews the human health-
> based findings from the first federal comparative risk
> assessment project and subsequent reviews conducted by
> 15 states and local government agencies in the United
> States. Methods are described on conducting comparative
> risk assessments that include substantive involvement of
> the public and special interest organizations. A
> consolidation of the comparative risk assessments of 15
> states revealed good agreement with federal health-based
> environmental hazard priorities and partial agreement
> with local-government health departments. In descending
> order of priority, indoor air pollutants (excluding
> radon), criteria air pollutants, hazardous air
> pollutants, indoor radon, lead contamination, inactive
> hazardous waste sites, and drinking water at the tap are
> the highest ranked environmental hazards to human health.
>
> > The trouble with the "precautionary principle" is that it does not consider
> > relative risk, and looks at risks one at a time. In particular with respect
> > to radon, how important is mitigating the radon risks compared to mitigating
> > other risks? The "precautionary principle" appears to fasten on to whatever
> > is bothering people at the moment and say "we need to mitigate this because
> > of the precautionary principle").
> >
> > Ruth Weiner, Ph. D.
> > ruthweiner@aol.com
> ************************************************************************
> 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/
--
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/