Geographical distribution of gamma radiation - Don't forget altitude

[epirad@mchsi.com]

County altitude would also be of interest. Please see:



Weinberg CR. Brown KG. Hoel DG. Altitude, radiation, and mortality from cancer 

and heart disease. Radiation Research. 112(2):381-90, 1987 Nov.



Regards, Bill Field

> 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/

> 

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

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/