|
Richard,
From your post, it appears that I am not the only
one who missed Philippe's original post. I only found it when Dan Strom replied
to it. Maybe it didn't make it on the list. Anyway, it gives links to radiation
maps that show lots of cancer where there is little radiation. Here is the
post.
Regards,
Kai
-----Original Message----- From: Philippe Duport
[mailto:pduport@uottawa.ca] Sent: Tuesday, December 31, 2002 12:00 PM To:
Jacobus, John (NIH/OD/ORS); 'Jerry Cohen'; 'Ted Rockwell'; BLHamrick@AOL.COM; 'John Cameron'; radsafe@list.vanderbilt.eduSubject:
RE: Not using LNT to calculate risk does not mean there is no
risk. John, Are low doses harmful? The USA all
cancers and lung cancer maps are the negative images of both the gamma
radiation and radon maps. Is such a consistent contrast due to chance
alone? One can accept statistical fluctuations in some states, but in
all states? Statisticians, please tell us what is the probability for
this to be due to chance alone in virtually all US states.
John, would agree to live in Denver, with annual doses more than
half the annual dose limit for radiation workers? Any nuclear facility
with such dose rates lasting for a whole life would be evacuated, don't you
think? Should Denver and all similar places in world be
evacuated? Cancer map: http://www.dceg.cancer.gov/cgi-bin/atlas/mapview2?direct=acccwm70< http://www.dceg.cancer.gov/cgi-bin/atlas/mapview2?direct=acccwm70>
Lung cancer map: http://www.dceg.cancer.gov/atlas/download/pdf2/lun-maps.pdf< http://www.dceg.cancer.gov/atlas/download/pdf2/lun-maps.pdf>
Gamma radiation map: http: < http://www.epa.gov/iaq/radon/zonemap.html> //www.epa.gov/iaq/radon/zonemap.html
; http://energy.cr.usgs.gov/radon/DDS-9.html< http://energy.cr.usgs.gov/radon/DDS-9.html>
Radon map: http://www.epa.gov/iaq/radon/zonemap.html< http://www.epa.gov/iaq/radon/zonemap.html>
Happy new year to all, . . .
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, January 02, 2003 12:24
PM
Subject: Re: Apparent anti-correlations
between geographic radiation and cancer are no...
At 09:35 AM 01/02/2003 -0600, Kai Kaletsch wrote:
The map
http://www.dceg.cancer.gov/cgi-bin/atlas/mapview2?direct=acccwm70
doesn't seem to support that conclusion. It may also be that "cancer
clusters" are usually considered a few incidences of very rare forms of
cancer. I think the biggest leukemia cluster has about a dozen or two cases.
These "clusters" would not show up on a cancer map that deals with millions
of cases. I don't know what the New Yorker article meant by clusters. (Us
healthy prairie folk only read fishing magazines, if we read at
all.)
Kai,
I see that you live on the Prairie
rather than the Plains and with that little fact and your obvious email
address, I have deduced that you live in Canada.
Last summer when I
drove the Trans-Canada highway (and tributaries) from Waterton Park to Carman,
Manitoba, I found the lowest background radiation of the whole trip from Los
Angeles to Carman (site of my wife's family reunion). I was measuring in the
order of 8-9µR/h (8 to 9 micro-roentgens per hour) with the usual background
of 13-14 at my house in Glendale, California (although my office measures
about 10 or so). (numbers are approximate from memory--detailed data could be
provided on request: a time-stamped radiation file and a time-stamped GPS
file, but only for serious research as it will take me some time to
compile).
Much of the discussion that I have seen about hormesis
centers around Denver and the surrounding high-elevation areas which obtain a
higher dose. My anecdotal measurements and the map do not correlate, unless
all of your basements are filling up with radon that wasn't measured along the
road.
At the top of the map, it says "rate map" so I'm assuming (and
sometimes we spell that with appropriate "/"s) that it is showing a
population-adjusted rate, not just a count of incidents.
There are some
interesting correlations that say to me that the environmentalists who claim
we're poisoning ourselves may have something here. Look at the "hotspot"
around the lower Mississippi. Isn't that one of the chemical plant corridors
of the country?
I'm surprised at central Maine, however...and why is
Shasta?? county in Northern California worse than Los Angeles
county?
Las Vegas makes sense to me--high incidence of tobacco
consumption and a bowl that pollutants don't escape from.
But then why
the hotspot near Glacier Park?
South New Jersey makes sense, but why
the Adirondaks? Paper mills?
This map certainly generates more and
broader questions in my mind than radiation.
Looking at this yet
another way...let's run down the 104W Longitude line.
At the Canadian
border (ND & MT), the elevation is about 2200 feet
At the border or N
& S Dakota and Montana, the elevation rises to 3100 feet.
At the border
of SD, NE, and WY it has risen to 3900 feet
As we reach the CO, NE, WY
border, it has reached a hair over a mile at 5300 feet.
Lake of the
Woods (that little thing that juts out of Minnesota north into Manitoba) is
shown as 1070 feet. (Data from USGS DEMs via DeLorme Topo 3)
I don't
see the positive or negative correlation between elevation (radiation) and
cancer risk.
Maybe those fishing magazines are good for
you?
Cheers,
Richard
|