Re: Is radon as dangerous as the EPA says?

["John Moulder" <jmoulder@post.its.mcw.edu>]

> The main point is that radon at ordinary levels is not 
> a health hazard.

What does "not a health hazard" mean?

1 -- To many, it means no statistically significant effect (at the levels to 
which people are actually exposed) in reasonably designed studies (lab or 
epi).  

2 -- But this is not everybody's definition.  At the other extreme, the EPA is 
willing to declare something a health hazard based on extrapolated risks of as 
low as 1 in 10^5 (or is it 1 in 10^6?).

3 -- There are also many people in this world who are willing to label 
something as a health hazard on basis of the absence of data proving absolute 
safety (look at the power line cancer controversy).

> Bernie's work gives strong evidence that supports 
> that conclusion.

It does is you use the first definition of a "health hazard", but not if you 
use the other two.

> It strongly contradicts the LNT model no matter how 
> you look at it.

I'm not sure about that.  The EPA radon model predicts that no increase in 
lung cancer should be detectable for the radon levels to which people are 
exposed in the vast majority of residences.  How can you "contradict" a model 
that predicts "no detectable effect"?   Arguably, the only way to contradict 
the model would be to show a threshold.  But if you really believe that there 
is no lung cancer risk associated with residential radon, you cannot 
contradict the EPA model.

> 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. 

Agreed, and in a more widely distributed forum than the HP Newsletter.  I'd 
suggest HP itself.  Alternatively, if anyone want's to make a specific 
proposal I will take it to the Rad Res Editorial Board.