epirad@mchsi.com wrote:
Stewart,
BEIR VI's best estimate of the number of lung cancer deaths attributed to radon
in the U.S. each year was 15,400 for the exposure-age-duration model and 21,800
for the exposure-age-concentration model. Many people take the average and use
18,600. The BEIR VI committee's uncertainty analyses using the constant
relative risk model suggested that the number of cases could range from about
3,000 to 33,000. However, the actual 95% upper confidence limit for the
exposure-age-concentration model was approximately 38,600, but the committee
suggested that such an upper limit was unlikely.
Does anyone besides me think that it would be a good idea for the public to be told "the estimated lung cancer risk from radon is 18,600 deaths per year, but could range from 3,000 to 33,000 per year?" Do we think the public is unable to grasp the idea that the numbers are only calculations that involve some significant uncertainties?