[ RadSafe ] Re: Residential radon risk

[Bernard Cohen]

niton at mchsi.com wrote:

>Dr. Cohen's inverse relationship is seen with smoking related cancers but not 
>with non smoking related cancers.  Dr. Cohen interprets this as some hormetic 
>effect; I interpret it as residual confounding from smoking. 
>  
>
        ---Why do you ignore my response to this sent to you on May 20 ? 
If you find fault with it, you should say why. But why are you entitled 
to simply ignore it and just repeat your argument? I repeat my May 20 
response here::

	In response to the message from Niton,
I don't understand why some he ignores my response to its line of reasoning which was proposed by Puskin. I have shown in 

 "The Puskin observation on smoking as a confounder in ecological correlations of cancer mortality rates with average county radon levels, Health Phys 86:203-204;2004. (This is posted as item #15 on my web site  www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc )

that there is no *possible* set of smoking data that would change the Puskin observation described above by Niton. Thus there can be no possible justification for his conclusion below that deficiencies in my data on smoking can explain my results.
	Furthermore, my papers go to great lengths to show that no remotely credible correlations between smoking prevalence and radon exposures can explain my data -- for a summary see Sec. 4.2 of item #7 on my web site www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc

	If there is something here you do not agree with, please specify.




>Further, we have recently found a gene that if missing increases radon-induced 
>lung cancer risk by 3 fold.  This finding was found in NEVER smokers.
>
>I would urge Health Physicist not to dismiss the important health risk posed by 
>radon.  
>
>The rather outdated HPS position statement on radon states, "Encourage and 
>Support Additional Research. Although we know a great deal about radon and its 
>potential effects on health, there is still much we do not know and could 
>benefit from learning. The EPA and other governmental agencies concerned with 
>radiological health should encourage and fund additional research by competent 
>qualified scientists to improve our understanding of the risks of radiation and 
>the means to mitigate those risks." http://hps.org/documents/indoorradon.pdf
>
>I realize that some folks feel that the only qualified scientists are those 
>that find an inverse association.  But time has come to accept the fact that 
>prolonged residential radon exposure (even at concentrations below the EPA 
>action level) increases lung cancer risk.  Downplaying the risk posed by 
>prolonged radon exposure is a public health disservice.
>
>Best Regards, Bill Field
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>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/
>  
>