Is radon as dangerous as the EPA says?

[jrcamero@facstaff.wisc.edu (John Cameron)]

I have never done research on radon or radium but I have read a lot of
articles about them. Bernie Cohen should be congratulated for his excellent
studies on radon. I have no doubt that in 50 years his data showing no
increase in lung cancer from home levels of radon will hold up. I don't
know if it will show hormesis in 50 years and I don't care. The main point
is that radon at ordinary levels is not a health hazard. Bernie's work
gives strong evidence that supports that conclusion. It strongly
contradicts the LNT model no matter how you look at it. 
        I have long sought a published debate on the LNT model. It is
urgently needed. The short anti-LNT articles in the June '95 HPS Newsletter
and Dan Strom's long pro-LNT article rebutting them was not a debate in any
sense. 
        For radsafers who want to read additional information  about the
non-existant risk of cancer from radon and radium at low to moderate
levels, I recommend Chapter 4 of Sohei Kondo's HEALTH EFFECTS OF LOW LEVEL
RADIATION. A-bomb survivors are now living longer than the controls despite
about 400 radiation induced cancers. One has to wonder why the public is
not told this important fact. It doesn't "prove" anything but it makes you
suspect the public is only hearing about the "dark side" radiation. If they
want to know more about the "light side" they should read THE GOOD NEWS
ABOUT RADIATION by John Lenihan.
        The ICRP adopted the LNT model for radiation protection in 1977 on
the basis that it was a consensus of the scientific community. I don't
recall being asked to vote on it. I think it is time for the ICRP to check
to see if their "consensus" still exists.
        I wonder why NCRP 115 (1993) on Risk Estimates for Radiation
Protection in Chap 9 on cancer and alpha particles did not quote Robley
Evens classical work (HPJ Nov '74 on Radium in Man) instead of data on
short lived Ra-224 which has very different health effects according to
Robley Evans. The clear threshold for osteogenic sarcoma of 10 Gy to the
skeleton would make the LNT model look rather foolish. No radium dial
painter who started work after 1925 ever had a radiation induced bone
cancer. One has to doubt that a DDREF of 2 can explain it. Evans' article
also shows clearly that radium induced cancer is not a stochastic process -
the incidence of radium induced carcinogenesis was nearly constant (about
30%) from 20 Gy to 500 Gy skeletal dose. The stochastic assumption is the
theoretical basis for the LNT model. One also  has to wonder also why the
radium cases didn't show any increase in leukemia despite a large bone
dose. It isn't obvious that the ICRP and NCRP consider all relevant data.
        How do we get a published scientific debate organized? Any ideas? 
If you have suggestions, send them to jrcamero@facstaff.wisc.edu       John
      
John R. Cameron 2678 SW 14th Drive, Gainesville, FL 32608-2050 
phone: 352/371-9865; fax 352/371-9866  e-mail: jrcamero@facstaff.wisc.edu