[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Radon, smoking and LNT
I'm glad that someone finds this fascinating. Before following this any further, I suggest that you obtain some basic information. The EPA guide is available at:
http://www.epa.gov/iaq/radon/pubs/citguide.html
I'm not sure why so many people view LNT as a "religious truth." It is simply a useful safety tool for deriving adequate standards that are economically viable. The anti-LNT people seem to have a religious zeal that is disturbing. One Radsafer compares LNT advocates to the Nazis, while others call LNT, "criminal."
Oh, well, gotta go. It's time for the scheduled incense burning at our LNT altar.
The opinions expressed are strictly mine.
It's not about dose, it's about trust.
Curies forever.
Bill Lipton
liptonw@dteenergy.com
"Johansen, Kjell" wrote:
> I am neither a statistician nor an epidemiologist. But, I find this debate of interest having seen LNT go from a working, conservative hypothesis to be applied in judgments for addressing radiation safety questions to what, now in some circles, having taken on the aura of a religious truth. So, if you don't mind, I've got a couple of thoughts which have crossed my mind while following this important debate. (I must say that I find this debate going on at a bit more higher level than the one concerning the formation of oceanic manganese nodules which raged on from the late 1800s to the discovery of deep-ocean vents spewing large amounts of Mn into the ocean in the '70s and 80s. Many mea culpas were offered for the remarks aimed at those who had proposed such an origin for Mn based on conclusions drawn from field data before the discovery of these deep ocean vents or "smokers" as they are called by oceanographers.)
>
> 1. When we refer to radon with regard to lung cancer, are we saying that it is radon alone that is of concern or are we using it as a surrogate for radon plus its decay products? (I assume the latter but want to make sure.)
>
> 2. At an HPS annual meeting some years ago (it may have been the late "80s), someone delivered a paper stating that light amounts of smoking stimulated the cilia of the air passage thereby providing some benefit for clearing pollutants from the lungs.
>
> If the answer to #1 above is that radon is short-hand for radon + radon daughters, and, it is true that light cigarette smoking does facilitate the removal of pollutants ( in this case think radon daughters attached to air particulates) perhaps, light cigarette smoking would have a positive benefit for diminishing radon daughter exposures and may account for the shape of Bernie Cohen's lung cancer - radon curve.
>
> Kjell Johansen, PhD
> Sr. Chemist-Environmental
> Point Beach Nuclear Plant
> Two Rivers, WI 54241
> kjell.johansen@nmcco.com
> ************************************************************************
> 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/