AW: AARST Radon Scientist Claim Nation's Policy a Failure

["Franz Schoenhofer" <franz.schoenhofer@CHELLO.AT>]

 

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: owner-radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu [mailto:owner-radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu]Im Auftrag von John Jacobus
Gesendet: Freitag, 10. Jänner 2003 19:33
An: epirad@mchsi.com; Stewart Farber
Cc: Richard L. Hess; Radsafe
Betreff: Re: AARST Radon Scientist Claim Nation's Policy a Failure

 

 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? 

----------------------------------------------- I do not only think, but I know for sure, that the public is unable to understand reasonings like this: After the Chernobyl accident we tried to tell them (for instance as the result of a WHO expert meeting in Germany) that we cannot ascertain that in Middle Europe anybody will die from the consequences of Chernobyl and the fallout, but that the maximum number we could calculate would be about so and so many thousand people among the hundreds of millions. Next day the  German papers stated, that the experts had confirmed that so and so many thousand people will die. I expect the same for radon.

 

Best regards,

 

Franz