[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: 700 cancer cases caused by X-rays
Another excellent book is: "Factors of Risk: The Politics of Radon," by Leonard A. Cole, published by the AAAS.
The book discusses one interesting case. EPA promoted an extensive (and expensive) radon mitigation program in Montclair, NJ. This involved large scale soil
removal and replacement with soil of low U content. A problem came when the contractors wanted to dispose of the removed soil in local landfills. The
residents refused to permit this saying that if it's so hazardous, "Not in my back yard." I can't recall the outcome, but soil disposal became a major headache.
The opinions expressed are strictly mine.
It's not about dose, it's about trust.
Curies forever.
Bill Lipton
liptonw@dteenergy.com
Tom Mohaupt wrote:
> Ruth,
> I'm glad you brought up the RAH-RAH Radon article in the last HPS
> newsletter, particularly for anyone who has tried to uncover where the
> action level of 4 pCi/L came from. If you're interested, you may want to
> read "Radon's Deadly Daughters: Science, Environmental Policy, and
> Politics of Risk" by M. Edelstein and W. Makofske, (Rowman &
> Littlefield, 1998). They present a summary of the development and
> evolution of radon policy. I must admit that my interpretation of the
> facts they provide differ strongly from the author's interpretations.
> Excellent book if you're interested in radon.
>
> Those of you who've read the radon article in the newsletter will recall
> that the last section dealt with homeowners paying for testing and
> mitigation. This is where the radon policy began. Back in the
> mid-1970's, there were two agencies seeking to oversee radon mitigation,
> the EPA and the DOE. The radon experience had included one house in PA
> (the book gives names & places of this famous incident) having 22 WL
> (about 4400 pCi/L) of radon that cost $40,000 to mitigate. The
> homeowner's employer covered the cost. Of course other members of the
> community wanted their house tested and mitigated. Mitigation costs were
> brought down to about $20,000 per house, paid for by the government. The
> DOE wanted to set the action level at 20 pCi/L (a small percentage of
> houses). The EPA wanted to set the limit at 4 pCi/L (a much, much larger
> percentage). Some Congressmen thought that every house in the U.S.
> should be at outdoor levels. The question was how, "How does the U.S.
> government pay for the program?" Notice that no health effects data for
> residential radon were available. All hypotheses were based on mine
> data. Funny how some things never change. [Note: The guy whose house had
> 4400 pCi/L, became a radon mitigator and was apparently still making a
> comfortable living at the publication of the above mentioned book.]
> {The rest is my conjecture from occurrances as published.}
> DOE was not sure of the cost of mitigating houses above 20 pCi/L, but
> $20,000 per house seemed reasonable from experience. That's an awfully
> steep cost for any homeowner to bear. By making the level 4 pCi/L as the
> EPA suggested enough houses would need mitigating to allow radon
> businesses to flourish. Hence, a house with 5 pCi/L paying $2000 for
> mitigation subsidizes the house with 20 pCi/L by helping to pay for the
> business infrastructure. The beauty of the plan is that the homeowner
> pays for mitigation, not the governement. All the EPA has to do is drum
> up business for the radon companies. Remember the radon ads of the early
> 1980's - children turning into skeltons, grossly exaggerated lung cancer
> threats. Remember the first radon guide that used projected radon lung
> cancer risk for smokers to all persons, even never smokers. The impetus
> for the program comes during house buying transactions.
> My personal opinion is that the EPA was way too bold in their radon
> policy. They can't afford for any data to suggest that radon is NOT the
> second leading cause of cancer. If there is a threshold for lung cancer
> say at 10 or 20 pCi/L, people who've mitigated their houses may file
> suit. A scary thought no matter what your point of view is.
> My observations:
> In epidemiological data, about 60-65% of the lung cancer cases have
> radon levels less than 2 pCi/L. About 85% of the cases have radon levels
> less than 4 pCi/L. The studies almost always use 4 Ci/L and above for
> the uppermost category, so how many (or percentage) lung cancers occur
> in persons exposed to 10 pCi/L or 20 pCi/L and above cannot be determined.
> In summary (sorry for the long posting)
> When the EPA article mentioned homeowners paying for their radon
> mitigation, many of you probably didn't realize that the concept had a
> long history.
> Tom
> My observations and thoughts...
>
> RuthWeiner@AOL.COM wrote:
>
> >Absolutely! And the same is true for the lead article in the last Health Physics Newsletter -- Dr. Puskin and EPA's attribution of all those LCFs to radon.
> >
> >Ruth
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> Thomas Mohaupt, M.S., CHP
> Radiation Safety Officer
> Wright State University
> 937-775-2169
> tom.mohaupt@wright.edu
>
> ************************************************************************
> 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/