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

[epirad@mchsi.com]

Ted,



I have said many times that my argument with Dr. Cohen's work has little to do 

with the LNT, but rather more with the limitations of ecologic studies.  



Let me say it one more time, I think an ecologic study is a very blunt 

instrument for testing the validity of the LNT. 



Further, I myself question the validity of the LNT for non high LET radiation.



I get several calls each week from people all over the United States that have 

said they have high radon levels in their home and are concerned, but they 

have read that Dr. Cohen has shown that radon is good for you and don't know 

whether to test or not.  Recently, a person with 60 pCi/L of radon in their 

bedroom said that her husband would not agree to mitigate their home because 

of Dr. Cohen's statement they sent me (below). 

-------------------------------

I am sure Dr. Cohen will say yet again he was misquoted. 



Cohen states that - 

"there is a better than even chance that radon is good for you." Cohen offers 

that his expertise is in epidemiology, not medicine, and that his statistics 

and data point to evidence that low levels of radiation are not bad for you.

----------------------

She said she got this quote from a radon health mine (site) her husbands wants 

to go to.  Many others have told me that they have not tested or mitigated 

because of Dr. Cohen's work and the active promotion of Dr. Cohen's work by a  

group that Dr. Cohen is a charter member of that supports the use of 

therapeutic radon exposure and even has meetings at radon health spas.  



http://cnts.wpi.edu/RSH/Docs/NYrRadonCure.pdf

http://cnts.wpi.edu/RSH/Docs/Radon/RnTherapiesIndex.htm



If you look at the list of people that are most vocally supportive of Dr. 

Cohen's work on this list (other then Kai), it is a small but orchestrated 

group such as yourself, Jerry Cohen, Fritz Seiler, Jim Muckerheide, and others 

that are reportedly organized to address the "fact" that public funds are 

wasted to support radiation protection policy and to support application of 

hormesis effects of low dose radiation.



I do not have an interest in the politics, I report the data as I see it.  I 

have published papers on both side of the issues including papers reporting  

that there was likely no wide spread contamination of Cesium-137 after TMI as 

well as "publishing" ecologic studies myself that suggests radon exposure does 

not cause breast cancer. Note, I always include limitations of ecologic study.



I must be doing something right to be both criticized and praised by Milloy. 

http://www.junkscience.com/news/radon-breast-cancer2.html



Radon is a serious environmental health concern and over half the average 

individual's effective radiation dose equivalent comes from residential radon 

progeny exposure.  



While I didn't feel this way ten years ago, as a Public Health Scientist, I 

now think it is prudent, based on what we know from the miner and residential 

radon studies along with recent studies of bystander effects that show an 

initial rapid dose response after irradiation, to minimize NEEDLESS radiation 

(including radon exposure).  Dr. Cohen's assertion that he is merely testing 

the LNT and not assessing the risk posed by radon is not being bought by the 

general public or even for that matter trained scientist. Dr. Cohen tries to 

use the LNT to try to get around the limitations of the ecologic studies, most 

scientists do not buy that the inherent limitations go away just because you 

say you are testing the LNT.   



-----------------

 Bill:

 

 Why do you feel it is so important to defend the scientific validity of the

 LNT at low levels when even NCRP, ICRP et al. conceded years ago that there

 is no scientific evidence to "prove, or even support the concept" and that

 most populations exposure to LDR "do not show deleterious effects and most

 populations show beneficial effects"?  They recommend its use anyway solely

 on the basis of "prudence."  Numerous msgs on this list have recently

 changed the premise that such usage is prudent.

 

 Ted Rockwell

 

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

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/