AW: [ RadSafe ] Re: Residential radon risk

[Franz Schönhofer]

Bernie,

You complain to Bill that he did ignore your response...... I sent recently
a comment to RADSAFE, more than seriously questioning any relation between
radon (Rn-222) concentration and lung cancer.

I may put forward that I have been involved in radon-questions since the
early 80's of last century, never in direct radon research, but involved
heavily in national programmes in Austria as to radon and NORM in drinking
water and radon in indoor air. Therefore I think I am entitled to raise my
voice on such a question, though I do not even pretend to be one of the
previously mentioned "Radon celebrities". 

"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? 

Do you have any data on radon progeny, if you have, why do you not put them
forward?

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

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: Montag, 30. Mai 2005 18:04
> An: niton at mchsi.com
> Cc: Otto G. Raabe; radsafe at radlab.nl
> Betreff: Re: [ RadSafe ] Re: Residential radon risk
> 
> 
> 
> 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/
> >
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/