[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Radon-Stirring the Pot
I think what Bill is trying to say is that the estimates of risk are based
on more realistic estimates of low dose exposures using glass dosimetry.
(Obviously, some assumptions about accuracy and the pooling of data has to
be done. After all, this is an epidemiological study, not a laboratory
experiment.)
Like you, I would like to see how the assumptions affect the results.
-- John
John Jacobus, MS
Certified Health Physicist
3050 Traymore Lane
Bowie, MD 20715-2024
E-mail: jenday1@email.msn.com (H)
-----Original Message-----
From: RuthWeiner@AOL.COM [mailto:RuthWeiner@AOL.COM]
Sent: Friday, September 20, 2002 8:58 AM
To: epirad@mchsi.com; slavak@gj.net
Cc: radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu
Subject: Re: Radon-Stirring the Pot
In a message dated 9/19/2002 7:53:11 PM Mountain Daylight Time,
epirad@mchsi.com writes:
<< Nonetheless, the residential radon studies do not have
to rely on any LNT extrapolations since they directly
examine the risk >>
Bill, I don't know what you mean by "directly examine." Risk estimates are
extrapolations anyway. The Iowa study does not provide a list of individual
exposures, which is what I would have thought was meant by "directly
examine". I really believe that to make your point you dshould publish the
radon exposures of the non-smoikers in your cancer cohort, after correcting
for secondary smoke.
Moreover, your assessment of radon exposure was hardly "direct." The paper
makes a lot of assumptions about times people spent at various rdon
exposures.
************************************************************************
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/