[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Geographical distribution of gamma radiation
Kai and folks,
The best person to talk to is the person who generated the terrestrial gamma
map at the URL given below. His contact information:
jduval@usgs.gov
Joseph S. Duval
954 National Center
12201 Sunrise Valley Drive
Reston, VA 20192
phone: 703-648-6106
office fax: 703-648-6383
The digital datasets on which the terrestrial gamma map was based could be
used to generate county-by-county average gamma-exposure values by a person
with appropriate GIS skills.
Jim Otton
Energy Program
U.S. Geological Survey
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu
[mailto:owner-radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu]On Behalf Of Kai Kaletsch
Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2003 11:08 AM
To: radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu
Cc: BERNARD L COHEN
Subject: Geographical distribution of gamma radiation
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/