[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Radon, smoking and LNT
Once more with feeling: I, along with the NCRP, etc., am not claiming that LNT
is valid, only that it's an assumption that should be used for planning
purposes. Cohen's data has not convinced us otherwise.
Permit me a bit of a tangential excursion: My experience is that, in many
cases, ALARA does not cost extra $$; that's just an assumption. A big part of a
good ALARA program is training, pre-job briefs, dry runs, and enhanced job
planning. These generally more than pay for themselves through improved
efficiency and quality.
The opinions expressed are strictly mine.
It's not about dose, it's about trust.
Curies forever.
Bill Lipton
liptonw@dteenergy.com
Ted Rockwell wrote:
> Bill, I think the concern is that, whereas there is virtually no scientific
> evidence that low-dose radiation (or low-dose anything else)is harmful, and
> Cohen's data are fully consistent with the rest of the vast field of
> toxicology, you and a few others in the radprot field treat Cohen's data as
> an anomaly that must be explained.
>
> The fact is that Cohen's data (and a number of other reports on people in
> homes with low radon level, without the confounding problems of mines, etc.)
> show what happens to real people in real homes with low-dose radon. To the
> extent that other data are inconsistent with it, they are the anomaly to be
> explained.
>
> Ted Rockwell
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu
> [mailto:owner-radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu]On Behalf Of William V Lipton
> Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2003 10:02 AM
> To: Johansen, Kjell
> Cc: Radsafe (E-mail)
> Subject: 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/
************************************************************************
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/