AW: Radon 'Causes 9% of Lung Cancer Deaths', Pershagen ,

[Franz Schönhofer <franz.schoenhofer@CHELLO.AT>]

Björn,



What about the Pershagen study? 



At least seven years ago I translated the manuscript of a report of the

study from Swedish into German, so I know a little about it. If memory

serves me well, he was extremely cautiously, with all "maybe's" and

"perhaps'" that there could exist a treshold of 400 (or was it 200?)

Bq/m3 for negative effects regarding lung cancer. In the English

publication these remarks did not show up. 



I did this translation for money (!!!), but I was not paid by the

nuclear lobby but from the budget of a research project, for which this

report was of utmost interest. Afterwards I had to provide a report to

my ministry to prove, that I had done this work in my spare-time, used

my own computer, that I had not used my working time to acquire my

Swedish skills. Any professional translater - who would of course not

have had the necessary knowledge in radon science - would have charged

about four times as much. This is just an additional comment, because a

short time ago the question of scientists being bribed to produce

expertises favourable for the nuclear industry has been raised. 



What is the status of the Pershagen study - or did you refer to it?



Franz



Franz Schoenhofer

PhD, MR iR

Habicherg. 31/7

A-1160 Vienna

AUSTRIA

phone -43-0699-1168-1319





> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----

> Von: owner-radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu [mailto:owner-

> radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu] Im Auftrag von Bjorn Cedervall

> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 22. Dezember 2004 07:09

> An: radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu

> Betreff: RE: Radon 'Causes 9% of Lung Cancer Deaths'

> 

> We had a message of this kind for Sweden some 3-4 years ago. The

> conclusion

> was 500 annual lung cancer deaths due to radon. Since the total is

3000

> people annually dying from lung cancer that would indicate a 16 %

figure.

> It

> was, however, said that of those 500 deaths 90 % were smokers which

would

> then make it 50 (1.6 %) out of a total of 3000.

> 

> It is thus obvious that the statistics is weak - add spurious cases,

> hereditary burden*, asbestos, car exhausts etc. To me 50 (attributed

to

> radon) could be anything from zero to several hundred - I simply

question

> whether it is possible to gain "knowledge" of anything at a level of

1.6 %

> of the total. If anything of what I have written here can be improved,

I

> will appreciate such related comments.

> 

> My personal initiative and reflection only,

> 

> Bjorn Cedervall   bcradsafers@hotmail.com

> ---

> * Genetcis - this reminds me that one of my genetics teachers -

professor

> emeritus Karl G Lüning passed away about a month ago. I am sure that

some

> Radsafers met his name in one way or another.

> 

> 

>

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

> 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/