[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Radon and Lung Cancer: What the studies really say.
> People living in counties that have high average radon concentrations
> have fewer lung cancers than people living in counties where the average
> radon concentration is lower do.
Oversimplified or not, it is a statement of fact. I said that, for this
thread, I wanted to assume that the relevant adjustments and stratifications
have been done correctly, so that we can avoid going in circles.
I have yet to see a case control study that supports LNT that is internally
consistent and where the data supports the authors' conclusion, but that is
an issue for another thread.
Kai
----- Original Message -----
From: <epirad@mchsi.com>
To: "Kai Kaletsch" <eic@shaw.ca>
Cc: "BERNARD L COHEN" <blc+@pitt.edu>; <radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2003 2:53 PM
Subject: Re: Radon and Lung Cancer: What the studies really say.
> People living in counties that have high average radon concentrations
> have fewer lung cancers than people living in counties where the average
> radon concentration is lower do.
> ------------------------
> This is huge oversimplification of the Cohen's data and has no
relationship to
> the risk posed to residential radon exposure.
>
> It can also be stated that -
>
> People who live in high radon counties smoke less etc, etc.
>
> Until the inter county variability of smoking and correlated factors are
> adjusted for, these generalizations are meaningless.
> > Friends,
> >
> > We are all aware that ecological studies, in general, have some
limitations.
> > Similarly, many of the case control studies have some very specific
> > problems. Both of these issues have been discussed (some would say ad
> > infinitum) on this board and elsewhere.
> >
> > For this thread, I'd like to assume that the authors of both types of
study
> > know their craft and are able to collect data and make some very basic
> > adjustments and stratifications. The studies then tell us:
> >
> > 1. People living in counties that have high average radon concentrations
> > have fewer lung cancers than people living in counties where the average
> > radon concentration is lower do.
> > 2. People who had high cumulative radon exposures in the past have more
lung
> > cancers than people who have been exposed less do.
> >
> > Some people have stated that the conclusions that follow from these
> > statements cannot both be right. Clearly, this is wrong. There is
probably
> > an infinite number of dose response functions that are consistent with
both
>
> > observations. None of these functions requires the presence of hidden
> > confounders. The obvious one that I can think of is:
> >
> > --> High radon in your own house is bad for you and high radon in your
> > neighbor's house is good for you.
> >
> > Radon in your own house represents chronic exposure and high radon in
your
> > own house will result in a high cumulative exposure. On the other hand,
you
> > are only exposed to the radon in your neighbor's house for a few hours
at a
> > time.
> >
> > Is there any reason why we should assume that the beneficial effects of
> > radiation exposure are dependent on cumulative dose? Can anyone name a
> > beneficial agent where the amount of benefit is related to cumulative
dose
> > alone? Other beneficial stressors (e.g. exercise) deliver their benefit
most
> > effectively if the stressor is applied for a short time and is followed
by a
> > period of relaxation. This is exactly the temporal variation in radon
> > exposure that someone living in a low radon house in a high radon county
> > would experience.
> >
> > Kai
>
> > http://www.eic.nu
> >
>
************************************************************************
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/