Re: Radon in low quality housing -Reply

[FRAMEP@ORAU.GOV]

JMUCKERHEIDE wrote;

>I don't understand this continuing discussion.

The question about radon and low quality housing was reasonable,
deserving of a reasonable answer, and some of us were simply trying
to provide helpful responses.

>Is there any HP who's reviewed the science who thinks indoor radon
>is "dangerous"? 

The term "dangerous", that never appeared in the original question,
is loaded. If you substitute "carries an increased risk of lung
cancer" the answer, as anyone knows who has reviewed the science, is
yes.

When talking about the risks at low doses, we are in an area Alvin
Weinberg calls "transscience" where scientific questions can be
raised that science cannot answer. The debate has the appearance of a
discussion about religion: faith is the operating priciple and
certain favorite studies play the role of holy scripture.

>I understand that for people who have not reviewed the science, the
>EPA political nonsense to con the gullible would reasonably raise
>these questions,

Without saying so this paints the EPA as the sole source for the view
that low levels of radon might be harmful. The EPA risk estimates
were based on the ICRP and BEIR IV studies. They can be disputed but 
should not be simply dismissed as political nonsense. 

>Anybody read Cohen's 2/95 HPJ article ?  just the latest update on
>dispositive data that has been produced, commented on, and proven,
>since the early data was published at least since 1988 !
>And that's only 1 of several proofs that the early uranium miner
>data, 

To say that Cohens paper is a "proof" of, or "prooves" the position
that low levels of radon carry no increased risk is a stretch. Cohen
himself stated recently that he doesn't draw conclusions, that he
reports observations. 

Furthermore Cohen's epidemiological studies are ecologic - they
compare the lung cancer rates in counties with average radon levels
in those counties. This is the weakest type of epidemiological study.
We don't know the individuals who get cancer, their smoking habits,
occupations or radon exposures. Some "experts" in the field e.g.
Neuberger and Samet strongly recommend that no further studies of
this type be performed. Neuberger states (HPJ 1994) "We feel
therefore that an ecologic study in isolation has limited scientific
validity" Samet (HPJ 1994) states " the ecologic method cannot
effectively address the risks of indoor radon" and in the latest HPS
newsletter other "experts" Puskin and Nelson criticize Cohens results
and cite other epidemiologists who "have examined Cohen's thesis and
found it an unreliable test of the linear no threshold hypothesis".
Now these "experts" might be wrong and Cohen right, but please don't
characterize those of us who share their view as gullible.

>that the early uranium miner data the only supposed connection,

The underground (not just uranium) miner data is the basis of the
proposed risks at low levels, true, but it is absolutely not the only
supposed connection. There are epidemiological studies at low levels,
(ecologic and case-control) that show a risk; there are animal
studies; and one can calculate a risk based on the dosimetry and the
increases in lung cancer seen in Hiroshima. Now, you might not agree
with these but to state that the miner data is the "only supposed"
connection is false.


As always, best wishes

Paul Frame
Professional Training Programs
Oak Ridge Institute of Science and Education
framep@orau.gov