[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Please help me make a table of rad facts



Dear RadSafers,
 
A few weeks ago, I asked if anyone could point me to a simple table summarizing the available DATA relevant to health effects of radiation. I think any discussion or training session about the health effects of radiation should start with the facts and not with our theories. From the facts, we can show how the theories come about.
 
Apparently, there is no simple summary of facts. I would like to solicit everyone's help to compile this table. If we can come up with something decent, it will have a home on my company's website ( http://www.eic.nu ) as a public service along side the Radon Toolkit. Here is what I'm looking for:
 
First - just the facts with a minimal amount of interpretation in a very short statement. For example, the ecological radon data can be summarized as: "US counties that have high average residential radon levels have low incidences (or is it mortality?) of lung cancer." This is a simple observation about our world that we all should be able to agree on, regardless of whether one is pro or anti LNT or pro or anti hormesis or even pro or anti nuke.
 
Other examples of statements of fact regarding radon would be: "Gold, uranium and tin miners who were exposed to large amounts of radon progeny had high lung cancer mortality." or "People who have lung cancer have higher levels of radon in their houses than the general population."
 
Second - just the facts with some more quantitative details WITHOUT introducing models, a lot of technical jargon or drawing cause and effect conclusions. In the ecological radon example, this might include: 1600 counties, 1000 000 measurements, independent measurements by EPA and U of P, counties with an average radon concentration of < 37 Bq/m3 (1pCi/L) have on average x times the lc incidence of counties where the average Rn concentration is 150 Bq/m3....
 
Third - a place (or places) to go for more info: ideally, the URL of the paper. (This will be an internet based resource, so references to papers that are not available on-line are of limited value.)
 
Fourth - a short description of the main limitations of the data set. In the above example, it would probably be that lung cancers and radon levels are matched on a county average and not on an individual basis.
 
Fifth - the range of doses that this data gives us information about.
 
Please note that we are talking about the data set. The author's conclusions and the arguments against these conclusions are not relevant to this exercise. (If Cohen has shown LNT to be invalid is not relevant to the description of the data set.)
 
Here are a few suggested ground rules:
 
  • For now, let's only talk about human data.
  • Let's stick to observable health effects. Increases or decreases in certain cells doesn't mean much to most people.
  • No using model dependent parameters: ERR/WLM (Excess Relative Risk per Working Level Month) assumes that there is a relation and goes beyond a description of the data set.
  • No "hit and run" science. No papers that are "about" to get published or "just came out". Data should be in the public domain for a reasonable amount of time.
 
If you don't feel comfortable posting to the list, please Email me directly ( info@eic.nu ).
 
Thanking you in advance,
Kai Kaletsch
Environmental Instruments Canada Inc.
http://www.eic.nu