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

[Kai Kaletsch <eic@shaw.ca>]

I have no problem with what you write below. I was under the impression that

you disagreed with my statements:



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.



or that these covered different ranges of exposure. Statement #1 does not

deal with exposure. The statements were not made wrt your test of LNT.



Kai



----- Original Message ----- 

From: "BERNARD L COHEN" <blc+@pitt.edu>

To: "Kai Kaletsch" <eic@shaw.ca>

Cc: <radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu>

Sent: Friday, June 20, 2003 11:03 AM

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





> On Fri, 20 Jun 2003, Kai Kaletsch wrote:

>

> > From: "BERNARD L COHEN" <blc+@pitt.edu>

> >

> > > --It is very widely agreed that a measurement of radon

> > > concentration in a home give an estimate of its occupants' exposure to

> > > radon progeny. The usual conversion is 0.2 WLM/year per pCi/L.

> > > This is used in essentially all case-control studies as well as my

> > > studies, and in estimates by EPA and other agencies.

> >

> > Your data is in terms of lung cancer vs. average county radon level NOT

lung

> > cancer vs the radon concentration in the patients house and you do not

> > multiply the concentration by time to get an exposure. (0.2 WLM/year  is

> > also not a unit of exposure. It is a unit of exposure rate.)

>

>        --I derive my basic Equation, Eqn (1) of item #7 on my web site, by

> adding up the exposures of all the individuals over their lifetimes; this

> is exposure rate times age for each person.

>

>

> > Any structure that you see in your graph could be due to only the people

in

> > 10 pCi/L houses. You have no way of knowing. The structure could also be

due

> > to the people who have a neighbor who has a 10 pCi/L house.

>

> --If LNT is valid, this is not a problem and the strong positive

> slope should be observed. If LNT is not valid, there is no way to

> interpret the structure in my graph. Since the first option is not

> fulfilled, I conclude that LNT is not valid. That is my only conclusion.

>

> > Why would you assume that the clear benefit that you

> > see in your lung cancer vs county radon graph has anything to do with

> > cumulative dose?

>

> --I have never claimed that my data show a benefit. I have always

> stated clearly that my only claim is that LNT fails, over-estimating the

> risk of low level radiation which is the direction of the failure.

>



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

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/