Geographical distribution of gamma radiation

[Kai Kaletsch <eic@shaw.ca>]

Friends,



Does anyone know where one can get data on gamma radiation in a form so that

the county is readily identifiable. The data seems to exist at a high enough

resolution ( see http://energy.cr.usgs.gov/radon/usagamma.gif ), but it

would be a lot of work to assign gamma radiation values to counties by just

using the map.



Thanks in advance,

Kai



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

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

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

Cc: <radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu>

Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2003 9:03 AM

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

ancer are no...





>

> On Mon, 13 Jan 2003, Kai Kaletsch wrote:

>

> > 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 ?

>

> --Do you know how that map can be converted into data for each

> county?

>

> >

> > > 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.

>

> --Depending on your definition of "large", I question this. My

> data should not be interpreted as risk vs dose to individuals, as that is

> what is meant by "the ecological fallacy". I have always insisted that my

> data be used only as a test of the linear--no threshold theory. However,

> even if my data are interpreted as risk vs dose to individuals, I have

> shown that they are not in conflict with case control studies.

>

>  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.

>

> --I understand your point on this. If you can help me find gamma

> ray background for counties, I will investigate this.

>



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

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/