Re: Radon and Lung Cancer: What the studies really say.

[epirad@mchsi.com]

 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, 



I am not an LNT proponent and I am not sure what you mean by internally 

consistent, but there have been innumerable case-control studies that support 

the LNT that have both external and internal validity.  I can provide details 

if you email me directly. 



I did not see in your first post that you wanted to assume that no confounding 

or effect modification took place.

> > 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/