Re: Is radon as dangerous as the EPA says?

[Free Spirit <FRANK@rover.bsd.uchicago.edu>]

>From:	SMTP%"radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu" 18-JAN-1996 14:27:00.13
>From: "John Moulder" <jmoulder@post.its.mcw.edu>

>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?).

	According to the Chicago Tribune on February 5, 1996

	"Of more than 20 million children vaccinated every year, an estimated 
	500 suffer serious reactions and 75 die, the Centers for Disease 
	Control and Prevention have determined."

	Hmm, 2.5 in 10^5 for serious reaction, 3.75 in 10^6 for death. Does that
	mean DTP shots qualify for superfund?

	I can seriously suggest that the above numbers might be underreported.
	Some years ago my son was rushed to the hospital with the classic
	symptoms of reaction to the Pertussis vaccine, right at the 10 day
	post injection time his Pediatrician warned us to be looking for it.

	It was officially reported as "Chronic untreated Pneumonia" (even
	though he was fine the next morning, an unlikely outcome if it were
	Pneumonia.) We also ended up being reported for possible child abuse.

	When will the powers that be begin to understand that any statistics
	at the 1 part in 10^5 are extremely unreliable to begin with?

Frank R. Borger - Physicist     ___      "Rain, sleet, snow, and dark of night
Michael Reese - U of Chicago   |___       don't bother us, but we have a lot
Center for Radiation Therapy   | |_) _    of trouble with closets, basements,
net: Frank@rover.uchicago.edu    | \|_)   car trunks and viaducts."
ph: 312-791-8075 fa: 791-2517       |_)   - New Chicago Post Office Motto.
                                         "And now, fake Unabomber bombs too!"