AW: [ RadSafe ] Re: Indoor Radon

[Franz Schönhofer]

Philipp,

I remember that some time ago the concept of "synergism" was very popular.
It meant that risks from dust etc. and from radon daughters would multiply.
Do I understand that this concept is now outdated and not state of the art?

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 Philippe Duport
> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 19. Mai 2005 21:24
> An: John R Johnson; Patrick Glennon; Radsafe
> Cc: Raymond Ilson; David Morley; Daniel F. Buksak
> Betreff: [ RadSafe ] Re: Indoor Radon
> 
> Patrick,
> 
> I am the co-author, with John Johnson of the recent (Dec 2004) review of
> Rn risk in U mines made for Radiation Protection Bureau (Health Canada).
> I would like to add to what John Johnson says that, since we are looking
> at lung cancer, what counts is the dose (of whatever carcinogen) to the
> lung.  In that regard, LUNG doses from radon decay products, gamma
> radiation and airborne ore dust are of comparable magnitude and that, in
> low grade U mines, radon decay products contribute less than half the
> total radiation dose - a systematic bias in epid studies (see P Duport,
> Radiation Protection Dosimetry Vol. 98, no. 3. pp. 329-338, 2002). The
> relative contribution of radon decay products to the total radiation dose
> to the lung is much less in high grade mines.   Also, if we accept the EPA
> position that cancer risks from multiple carcinogens are additive, the
> lung cancer risk attributable to radon decay products alone must be the
> difference between the overall risk observed in a population minus the sum
> of the risks due to all other carcinogens.  To fail to accept that is to
> admit, implicitly, that the risk is not linear with dose and that risks
> are not additive.
> 
> Please tell me if the reasoning is wrong...  I am not infallible.
> 
> regards,
>