Re: RADON OPINION PIECE

[mcnaught@Lanl.GOV (Mike McNaughton)]

The "Radon opinion piece" by David Averill of the Tulsa World was
criticized for not distinguishing between stochastic and non-stochastic
effects.

In my opinion, this distinction is valuable in a classroom, but is not rigid.
In biology, most graphs are approximately S shaped.  Some are very steep,
like an integral sign in calculus, others are shallow like a ski hill.
We simplify this by calling the latter "stochastic" and the former
"non-stochastic".

We also state that in one, the probability varies with dose, and in the other
the severity varies with dose.  Again, this is a simplification.  The
concept of
LD50/60 acknowledges that in non-stochastic effects, the probability does vary,
though somewhat like an integral sign.  With cancer, we know that there are
less
severe "cancers" that are slow to metastasize and more severe "cancers"
that are
resistant to therapy.  It is a reasonable hypothesis that this severity might
depend on the "insult".

In summary, I think the appropriateness of using a "non-stochastic" example
when
discussing the "stochastic" effects of radon is a judgement call.

"Shlala gashle" (Zulu greeting, meaning "Stay safe")
mike (mcnaught@LANL.GOV)