Re: Radon in low quality housing -Reply

[JMUCKERHEIDE@delphi.com]

Dr. John Goldsmith writes,
 
> On radon risks in "low quality" housing, Paul Frame resourcefully
> notes the distinction between the question of radon in such housing and of 
> risks of lung cancer in "low quality" housing.  On the second point I can
> add some insight, based on a paper on 119 communities in the Los
> Angeles Metropolitan area in 1970 (Public Health Reviews vol 19, 1991/2, 
> pp. 147-161.  The air pollution variable contributed nothing in a 
> path analysis and regrssion analysis, but population density (persons
> per acre) made a strong contribution no matter what other variables
> were considered; housing density (persons per room) was negatively 
> asociated by both regression and path analysis.  Per capita income
> also was negatively associated with lung cancer. (the less income 
> the more lung cancer) "Low quality" housing needs to be better defined
> as some of Paul's comments emphasize. If you want a reprint, send mailing
> address to me.  John Goldsmith (gjohn@bgumail.bgu.ac.il) Ben Gurion
> University, Faculty of Health Sciences. POB 653, Beer Sheva 84 120
> Israel

I expect this data is very relevant to cancer. But of course in the context of 
radon, as Paul Frame notes, that low quality housing is this is more likely to 
have be lower radon concentrations, which have higher cancer rates. On the
other hand, the extensive testing of confounding factors in Cohen's work does
not show a significant association between  related socio-economic variables.
Of course since the data is by county, the differences of mean radon
concentrations, with their statistical errors, seem to significantly overwhelm 
such factors, which would reinforce the statistical validity of the Cohen
epidemiological analysis with respect to the radon association. 

Note also that it is likely that the relationship between radon concentrations 
and doses by county data is better than the relationship between radon doses
and measurements in "case-control" studies which try to associate house
measurements with individuals, since the relationship between home data and
individual lung dose is extremely uncertain, and the numbers of individuals is 
too small to provide well-defined data. As a result of the lack of direct
association between house measurements and the large uncertainties in actual
lung doses to occupants, these studies are not substantially different than
"ecological studies" in form and content, except that their numbers are too
small to accurately reflect the association. 
(also below)

> On Fri, 4 Aug 1995 FRAMEP@ORAU.GOV wrote:
> 
> > >I am researching wether there is an increased risk of exposure to
> > >Radon in low quality housing.....
> > > Any thoughts?
> > 
> > It might be that there are at least two intertwined yet distinct
> > issues here: the levels of radon in low quality housing and
> > the risk of lung cancer to occupants of low quality housing.
> > 
> > Not knowing the answer, I would guess that radon levels are lower in
> > low quality housing for several reasons. Needless to say, such a
> > guess might be completely wrong.

But these seem very reasonable assessments.

> > 1.Low quality houses might be less likely to have basements and more
> > likely to have a crawl spaces.
> > 
> > 2.Low quality housing is less likely to have air conditioning and
> > more likely to have open windows.
> > 
> > 3.Low quality housing is more likely to be an apartment/tenement 
> > and less likely to be a detached house.
> >
> > 4.Low quality housing is more likely to be found in urban areas,
> > where wind speeds are substantially less than in suburban areas. The
> > higher the wind speed, the lower the pressure in the building and the
> > higher the radon influx.
> >
> > Why might occupants of lower quality housing be more likely to
> > develop lung cancer?
> > 
> > 1. They might include a larger percentage of smokers.
> > 
> > 2. The urban areas they dwell in have higher levels of air
> > pollutants.
> > 
> > 3. Their occupations might expose them to higher levels airborne
> > dust/fumes/fibers etc.

Lower radon concentrations ??   :-)

> > For what its worth, today is the Department of Energy's 18th
> > birthday. That's the legal drinking age in some places. Happy
> > Birthday! 

Also the age when the death penalty for heinous crimes against humanity kicks
in? :-) 

> > Paul Frame

Regards, Jim