Re: Radon-Stirring the Pot

[hflong@postoffice.pacbell.net]

Bill and HP's,

Glass radon (alpha etch) instruments ARE NOW USED in Hungary,

TO MONITOR MEDICAL SUPPLEMENT (see Becker ref.)

Get the lead out of agencies! (pardon the pun).  Howard Long



ARE CURRENT RESIDENTIAL RADON RISK ESTIMATES RELIABLE?



Klaus Becker , RSH., Berlin/Germany  (prof.dr.klaus.becker@t-online de)



Among the various “natural laboratories” of high radiation environments, the

areas in and around the Erzgebirge in the southern parts of former East Germany,

in particular around Schneeberg in Saxony, deserve special attention. From 1945

to1989 it was one of the world’s most important uranium mining areas providing

the former Soviet Union with 220.000 t U mainly for military programs. Most data

related to health effects of radon and other cancerogenic agents on miners and

residents  became available only after German reunification and some, such as the

“Schneeberg Study” about the effects of increased residential radon levels on

lung cancer among never-smoking women supported by the EU (Fig.1), as well as on

other types of cancer, are still partially unpublished and/or not available in

English, and thus internationally less known than other case-control studies.

With smoking being the by far dominating cause of lung cancer, non-smoking women

have also been investigated, e.g. in Hungary with similar results regarding all

types of cancer (Fig. 2).



By now, extensive studies have been performed on previously unavailable data

about the miners and the population, providing valuable insights, which are

increasingly in disagreement with the estimates of various international bodies

of an increase of lung cancer risk in the order of 10% for each 100 Bq/m³ even

for low residential radon concentrations. At the same time, several randomized

double-blind studies in medical clinics using radon on a large scale as a

therapeutic against various rheumatic and arthritic diseases, Morbus Bechterew

etc., confirmed the long-established effectiveness of such treatments.



As results still evolving or under intense discussion among the experts exhaust

fumes, evidence is emerging that radon, which has been inhaled at concentrations

in the multimillion Bq/m³ range by many of the early miners (with large

uncertainties in retrospective dosimetry) was probably an important, but probably

not the dominating factor for the increase in lung cancer rates. Smoking,

inhalation of quartz and mineral dust, arsenic, etc., are underestimated

confounders. An extrapolation of miner data to indoor radon  seems not feasible.



Also, the overwhelming effect of smoking on lung cancer incidence makes the

results of  many residential Rn studies questionable. Apparently, there is a

threshold for detrimental residential radon health effects around 600-1000 Bq/m³,

with indications for positive effects around 200-500 Bq/m³. As a cause of lung

cancer, radon seems to rank, far behind active and passive smoking, and probably

also air pollution, as a minor contributor, except in cases of very high

residential radon levels combined with heavy smoking of the residents.



As demonstrated in so far four recent clinical randomized double-blind studies

for various painful inflammatory joint diseases, radon treatments are beneficial,

with the positive effect lasting until at least six months after the normally

three-week treatment by inhalation or bathes. According to these results, the

positive medical effects for some diseases far exceed any potential detrimental

health effects of non-steroid antirheumatic drugs causing tens of thousands of

casualties world-wide every year. Considering the aging population in Europe, as

well as the economic and psychological effects of restrictive construction

regulations, the residential radon limits should probably be increased above the

currently suggested ICRP/BEIR VI/EU values by at least  a factor of two.



Fig. 1:  Odds ratio for lung cancer among non-smoking women as a function of

residential radon concentrations for the Schneeberg/Saxony and the

Scheniang/China Studies (J. Conrady et al., Die Schätzung des Lungenkrebsrisikos

durch Radon bei Nichtrauchern, Proceed. 3. Biophysikal. Arbeitstagung Schlema,

Sept. 7-9, 2001, 197-208 (Radiz/Schlema 2002)



Fig. 2:   Number of ALL annual cancer cases among middle-aged non-smoking women

in Hungary (I. Lazar, E. Toth, G. Marx, 2nd Internat. Symp. on Radiat. Education,

Debrecen/Hungary Aug. 21-25, 2002)





epirad@mchsi.com wrote:



> Tom wrote:

>

> "Are glass-based radon detectors used for assessing home

> radon concentrations for mitigation purposes?"

>

> Tom, I do not know of any place where they are used for

> mitigation purposes.

>

> Alavanja et al. have addressed the limitations of the MO-

> I dosimetry, see:

>

> Michael C. R. Alavanja, Jay H. Lubin, Judith A.

> Mahaffey, Ross C. Brownson, RE: "RESIDENTIAL RADON GAS

> EXPOSURE AND LUNG CANCER: THE IOWA RADON LUNG CANCER

> STUDY" Am. J. Epidemiol. 2000 152: 895-896.

>

> Tom,  Alavanja attributes the higher odds ratios of the

> MO-II study to the improved dosimetry of the glass

> detector.

>

> Lagarde recently came the same conclusion:

> J Expo Anal Environ Epidemiol 2002 Sep;12(5):344-54

>

> Glass-based radon-exposure assessment and lung cancer

> risk.

>

> Lagarde F, Falk R, Almren K, Nyberg F, Svensson H,

> Pershagen G.

>

> Institute of Environmental Medicine, Karolinska

> Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.

>

> Lung cancer risk estimation in relation to residential

> radon exposure remains uncertain, partly as a result of

> imprecision in air-based retrospective radon-exposure

> assessment in epidemiological studies. A recently

> developed methodology provides estimates for past radon

> concentrations and involves measurement of the surface

> activity of a glass object that has been in a subject's

> dwellings through the period for exposure assessment.

> Such glass measurements were performed for 110 lung

> cancer subjects, diagnosed 1985 to 1995, and for 231

> control subjects, recruited in a case-control study of

> residential radon and lung cancer among never-smokers in

> Sweden. The relative risks (with 95% confidence

> intervals) of lung cancer in relation to categories of

> surface-based average domestic radon concentration

> during three decades, delimited by cutpoints at 50, 80,

> and 140 Bq m(-3), were 1.60 (0.8 to 3.4), 1.96 (0.9 to

> 4.2), and 2.20 (0.9 to 5.6), respectively, with average

> radon concentrations below 50 Bq m(-3) used as reference

> category, and with adjustment for other risk factors.

> These relative risks, and the excess relative risk (ERR)

> of 75% (-4% to 430%) per 100 Bq m(-3) obtained when

> using a continuous variable for surface-based average

> radon concentration estimates, were about twice the size

> of the corresponding relative risks obtained among these

> subjects when using air-based average radon

> concentration estimates. This suggests that surface-

> based estimates may provide a more relevant exposure

> proxy than air-based estimates for relating past radon

> exposure to lung cancer risk. doi:10.1038/sj.jea.7500236

> > Are glass-based radon detectors used for assessing home radon

> > concentrations for mitigation purposes?

> >

> > Glass-based radon detectors integrate the radon progeny over the time

> > period since the glass was made, and perhaps even before then depending on

> > type of sand used to make the glass. Glass-based radon detectors might be

> > appropriate to for epidemiology purposes providing you know the history of

> > the glass (i.e., was it bought new or used), the composition of the glass

> > (how much U is in the sand used to make it), and smoking history in the

> > residence and past residences. It would not be an effective means for

> > measuring radon concentrations, which becomes important for mitigation

> > purposes and relating the epidemiological assessment to other studies. For

> > this reason, epidemiologist must include track-etch measurements, even when

> > they use glass-based detectors for their correlation analyses.

> >

> > Note that the Mo study (Non-smoking women) was negative using track-etch

> > radon detectors. A second published version had a slightly positive

> > correlation when smokers were added and glass-based radon detectors were

> > used. When using track-etch radon detectors (i.e., the best method for

> > measuring long-term radon concentrations) both studies were negative.

> >

> > Tom

> > --

> > Thomas Mohaupt, M.S., CHP

> > University Radiation Safety Officer

> >

> > 104 Health Sciences Bldg

> > Wright State University

> > Dayton, Ohio 45435

> > tom.mohaupt@wright.edu

>



************************************************************************

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/