AW: AW: [ RadSafe ] Re: Residential radon risk

[Franz Schönhofer]

Thank you for your response. My critizism was not so much intended to you
personally, but of course you are a well established scientist on radon and
lung cancer and therefore you will be in the forefront of any critizism!

Having worked such a long time with radon I know of course the health
effects of "radon". I know as well about the problems associated with UF. I
am very aware of the problem in mines, the WL approach etc. etc. as you
mention in your post. 

I know very well about the problems of measuring UF and radon daughters
concentrations. I agree with your comments that it is much easier to measure
radon-222 concentrations. I have done it tens of thousand time within the
Austrian Radon Project, using the charcoal/LSC method, which also you used
some time ago. But the Austrian Radon Project was not (!!!) intended to find
a relation between radon-222 concentration and lung cancer. We just wanted
to know the radon concentration distribution and an appropriate risk. (What
one could (if so desired) derive from the data was, that radon concentration
and lung cancer were negatively correlated in some areas, but since
radon-222 is not linearily related to lung cancer this is a no-no result.)

I insist that relation between Rn-222 concentrations and lung cancer can of
course be made (as well as relations between arrival of storks and birth
frequency), but to claim extremely small effects on lung cancer taking into
account the unknown relation between Rn-222 and progeny is simply
unacceptable. 

I think that all those highly sophisticated research by the "radon
celebrities" who only take Rn-222 concentrations into account should at
least be reconsidered and revised. 

I see that Bill Field is doing a reasonable job to measure daughter
products. I will observe his work in the future.  

Best regards,

Franz


Franz Schoenhofer
PhD, MR iR
Habicherg. 31/7
A-1160 Vienna
AUSTRIA
phone -43-0699-1168-1319


> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] Im
> Auftrag von Bernard Cohen
> Gesendet: Dienstag, 31. Mai 2005 22:20
> An: Franz Schönhofer
> Cc: 'Otto G. Raabe'; 'Bernard Cohen'; radsafe at radlab.nl
> Betreff: Re: AW: [ RadSafe ] Re: Residential radon risk
> 
> 
> 
> Franz Schönhofer wrote:
> 
> >"Why do you ignore my response.....", just a copied phrase from your
> mail.
> >Do you believe that it is below your scientific level to answer my
> clearly
> >formulated criticism? Why do you still mention average county radon
> levels
> >in this post?
> >
>           ---Your message was not addressed to me specifically and was
> not about my work specifically, so I did not feel obligated to respond,
> butI will respond here.
>     The health effects of radon depend basically on three things, radon
> gas concentration -r, concentration of radon daughters --WL (working
> level), and unattached fraction -UF (fraction of radon daughters not
> attached to a dust particle - this is important because these have a
> much greater probability of sticking to the bronchial surfaces). In
> mines, there is so much dust that one can assume UF = 0, so measuring WL
> gives the health effects. In homes, this is not so. As an example, one
> can drastically reduce the WL by removing the dust (for example, with an
> electrostatic precipitator), but the newly formed radon daughters have
> no dust to attach to, so UF = 1.0, and the danger is not reduced.
> Roughly, health effects, HE = k x WL x UF.where k is a constant
>      In general, there is a strong negative correlation between UF and
> the ratio of WL/r (equilibrium factor), or .UF x WL/r  = K, another
> constant.  Combining these two equations, HE = k x K x r, or health
> effects are proportional to r, HE = k' r. Detailed studies have
> confirmed this result, and shown that it is much more accurate than
> assuming HE = k'' x WL. (k' and k'' are new constants)
>     Ideally, one should measure WL and UF, but that is very difficult
> and is essentially never done. Moreover, it is much easier to measure r
> than to measure WL. That is why everyone measures r. .
>     In my studies involving hundreds of thousands of measurements of r,
> it seems reasonable to assume that there is no strong systematic
> variation in the ratio of r to health effects. If you have reason to
> think that there might be such a systematic variation, please let me know.
> 
> >I insist that it is more than unscientific to claim minor statistical
> >significance, when the data might be wrong by tens of percents.
> >
> >Sorry to say, that I have once admired your way of proofing that others
> are
> >incorrect, by using their data and showing that they are in disagreement
> >with the claimed results. I have used this tactic very often myself.
> >
> >In this case I believe that you are working with data (radon
> >concentrations), which are not directly related to your "results" - lung
> >cancer.
> >
> >Franz
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> You are currently subscribed to the radsafe mailing list radsafe at radlab.nl
> 
> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood
> the RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
> http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html
> 
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
> visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/