Re: Radon-Stirring the Pot

[epirad@mchsi.com]

Vincent,



I think it is important to consider whether the exposure 

is low versus high LET and what tissues we are talking 

about when making assumptions about the LNTT.  One can 

not generalize about dose response for all types of 

radiation.  I personally question linearity for gamma 

and x-ray, but for alpha decay and lung tissue I am 

fairly convinced it is linear from the radon studies.



The miner data showed a linear response down into the 

ranges found for many homeowners so it is not a stretch 

to assume linearity for radon.  In fact, they found an 

inverted convex dose response curve that became linear 

only when the inverse dose rate effect was adjusted for. 



Nonetheless, the residential radon studies do not have 

to rely on any LNT extrapolations since they directly 

examine the risk.



Bill Field

bill-field@uiowa.edu

> 

> Regardless of whether you agree with what has been done to this point (I'm not 

> interested in a stream of LNT vs. hormesis followups to this message), the 

> radiation protection community has recommended use of the linear-no-threshold 

> theory to set policies, regulations, etc., saying in effect "We don't know and 

> cannot demonstrate what happens at very low levels of exposure, so we will 

> assume this as sort of a worst case; better safe than sorry."

> 

> The radiation protection community has NOT recommend use of the LNT for the 

> purpose of making assertions about what actual health effects exist at low 

> doses.

> 

> Consequently, anyone making statements such as "radon IS the second-leading 

> cause of cancer," basing their statement on LNT, is (1) using LNT in a manner 

> NOT recommended by the radiation protection community, and (2) making assertions 

> of fact (when they use the word "is" as I did above) without proof or evidence.

> 

> In my opinion, making assertions of fact without proof or evidence is VERY close 

> to lying.

> 

> Just an opinion.  Feel free to point out if I'm missing something.

> 

> Vincent King

> Grand Junction, CO

> 

> 

> 

> ---------- Original Message ----------------------------------

> From: BERNARD L COHEN <blc+@PITT.EDU>

> Reply-To: BERNARD L COHEN <blc+@PITT.EDU>

> Date:  Thu, 19 Sep 2002 12:57:59 -0400 (EDT)

> 

> >

> >On Thu, 19 Sep 2002, Estabrooks, Bates (IHK)  wrote:

> >

> >> Radsafers,

> >

> >> 1. Where did the claim that radon is the "second leading cause of lung

> >> cancer in the United States" originate?

> >

> >	--It has been used for years by EPA. It is demonstrably correct if

> >you assume validity of the linear-no threshold theory.

> >

> >

> ************************************************************************

> 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/