Re: Apparent anti-correlations between geographic radiation and cancer are no...

[Kai Kaletsch <eic@shaw.ca>]

From: "BERNARD L COHEN"



> --There are no data on gamma radiation for counties or even for

> states, so I can't do this directly.



How about http://energy.cr.usgs.gov/radon/usagamma.gif ?



> But radon is surely more important in

> the link to lung cancer than is gamma radiation.



In the absence of other data, I would agree with you. There are however some

(case-control) data sets out there that would be fairly difficult to

reconcile with a large beneficial radon effect. On the other hand, I am not

aware of any credible data set that is inconsistent with a beneficial effect

of gamma radiation at background levels.



> Also, gamma radiation should be positively

> correlated with radon levels, not negatively correlated as would be

> necessary to change our conclusions.



Only if you assume that gamma radiation at BG levels is bad for you, which

is not my assumption. A large beneficial effect of gamma radiation, which

should be positively correlated to radon, would change your conclusions.



Kai



----- Original Message -----

From: "BERNARD L COHEN" <blc+@pitt.edu>

To: "Kai Kaletsch" <eic@shaw.ca>

Cc: <radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu>

Sent: Monday, January 13, 2003 10:06 AM

Subject: Re: Apparent anti-correlations between geographic radiation and c

ancer are no...





>

> On Fri, 10 Jan 2003, Kai Kaletsch wrote:

>

> > From: "BERNARD L COHEN" <blc+@pitt.edu>

> > ...

> > > The solution to this is my approach of studying lung cancer in

> > > U.S. Counties vs radon exposure. For starters, according to LNT about

10%

> > > of lung cancers are due to radon, so this is already a 10-fold

advantage.

> > > More important, my study involves 1600 counties which allows very

> > > elaborate treatment of confounding factors. This treatment is reviewed

in

> > > paper #7 on my web site,   www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc

> >

> > Have you ever treated terrestrial gamma radiation as a confounding

factor in

> > your radon vs lung cancer studies? In other words: Is it possible that

the

> > negative correlation you see between radon and lung cancer has nothing

to do

> > with radon, but is rather an effect of gamma radiation or something else

> > that is related to radon by a physical mechanism?

>

> --There are no data on gamma radiation for counties or even for

> states, so I can't do this directly. But radon is surely more important in

> the link to lung cancer than is gamma radiation. Also, I have shown that

> the effects I observe are found for each region of the nation, and for

> individual states (on average). Also, gamma radiation should be positively

> correlated with radon levels, not negatively correlated as would be

> necessary to change our conclusions.

>

>

>



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

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/