Re: If you do Science, use the Scientific Method!

[Kai Kaletsch <eic@shaw.ca>]

MessageDavid Hall wrote:



> "The data seems to indicate..." misses the point of the study, and that is to SUPPORT or REFUTE the LNT theory of radiation carcinogenesis.



You are correct that that is the point of the study. My question is: Should this be the only point?



LNT is irrelevant. I have yet to meet anyone who believes in LNT as a correct scientific theory. Some people believe that it is a reasonable and conservative basis for regulations. 



To me the more important questions are: What is the true dose response curve? Is cumulative dose even a relevant metric at low doses and dose rates? (Perhaps all houses should be below 100 Bq/m3, but we should visit a radon spa twice per month.)



The most important question is: What is killing all the people in low radon areas? 



Kai

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

  From: Hall, David A. 

  To: 'Kai Kaletsch' ; peter.thomas@health.gov.au ; Fritz A. Seiler ; RadSafe 

  Sent: Friday, September 19, 2003 11:01 AM

  Subject: RE: If you do Science, use the Scientific Method!





  If I might be so bold.......



  "The data seems to indicate..." misses the point of the study, and that is to SUPPORT or REFUTE the LNT theory of radiation carcinogenesis.

  As has been mentioned numerous times here on radsafe, there is no ethical nor practical way to determine (by the scientific method) the true risk to an individual to induction of cancer by radiation.



  I consider myself a novice in Health Physics compared to the true experts here on the list.  When I first learned about Dr. Cohen's paper, the conclusion of refuting the LNT was obvious from a "common sense" perspective as well and the "scientific" perspective.  The "Cohen's Paradox" is truly an interesting paradox.... but in my opinion has no bearing on the validity of the LNT, nor on individual risks.



  My simplistic view of the issue is this:  If the LNT is true (small incremental increase in risk with a small incremental increase in dose), then it doesn't matter what the distribution of dose is to individuals, just the sum of the doses (small and large) divided by the number of individuals, compared with the cancer incidence.



  Has anyone EVER published a peer-reviewed paper that supports the LNT based on individual doses in the environmental or occupational dose ranges?



  We, as professionals need to be ever-vigilant to guard against mis-applying results of analysis in areas they were not intended to be applied.



  I have indeed learned much from this forum over the years.  Thank you all for participating and allowing me to observe.



  David Hall, Las Vegas, Nevada

  (Speaking for myself as an HP novice, and not on behalf of my employer or any future employers.)



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

    From: Kai Kaletsch [mailto:eic@shaw.ca] 

    Sent: Friday, September 19, 2003 8:50 AM

    To: peter.thomas@health.gov.au; Fritz A. Seiler; RadSafe

    Subject: Re: If you do Science, use the Scientific Method!





    Peter Thomas wrote:



    >  It is a simple fact that the risk to an individual cannot be determined in such a study. 



    The data seems to indicate that the risk of lung cancer TO AN INDIVIDUAL is negatively related to average county radon levels. The lower the average county radon level, the higher the risk of lung cancer for INDIVIDUALS living in the county.



    What can be debated is if this is due to people's cumulative exposure to radon, some other radon exposure related parameter (such as a few short very high exposures that stimulate the immune system), something not related to radon at all (confounding from smoking, age, altitude, terrestrial gamma etc.), .... . The risk to an individual living in a low radon county seems to be quite high, whatever the cause might be.



    Unfortunately, I am not aware of any case control study that was designed to investigate the risk of lung cancer TO AN INDIVIDUAL as a function of AVERAGE county radon levels. (This could eliminate some of the more obvious confounders.) Surely, the technology exists to investigate the risk to an individual posed by a group level factor. All the case control studies that I am familiar with try to investigate the relation between risk and people's cumulative exposure to radon, which could be completely irrelevant to the ecologic finding.



    Kai