[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Geographical distribution of gamma radiation - Don't forget altitude
Kai, Bernie and others,
The best person to talk to is the person who generated the terrestrial
gamma-exposure map at the URL given below, Joe Duval. His contact
information:
jduval@usgs.gov
Dr. Joseph S. Duval
954 National Center
U.S. Geological Survey
Reston, VA 20192
phone: 703-648-6106
office_fax: 703-648-6383
The digital dataset from which the terrestrial gamma-exposure map was
generated could be used to generate county-by-county average gamma exposure
values by someone with the proper GIS skills and an understanding of the
algorithm used to generate the gamma-exposure from the original spectral
data gathered during the overflights. Please note that the cosmic-ray gamma
component is NOT included in the terrestrial gamma-exposure map.
Jim Otton (Dr. James K. Otton)
Energy Program
U.S. Geological Survey
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu
[mailto:owner-radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu]On Behalf Of epirad@mchsi.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2003 1:22 PM
To: Kai Kaletsch
Cc: radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu; BERNARD L COHEN
Subject: Geographical distribution of gamma radiation - Don't forget
altitude
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/
************************************************************************
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/