Re: $2500 award

[Bernard L Cohen <blc+@pitt.edu>]

On Wed, 22 Jan 1997, Wes Van Pelt wrote:

> Bernie,
> 
> It seems to me that a second grand radiation epidemiology experiment
> might be done with background photon and muon radiation instead of
> radon.  
> 
> That is, correlate average county external dose rate with cancer rate by
> county.  The external background dose rates might be obtained from
> several large dosimetry services (e.g. Landauer, ICN, etc.) whereby
> their background dosimeters are assumed to represent the average dose
> rate in that county. I would think that there are 1e+5 or more
> background dosimeter readings available. Perhaps one would have to
> correct for extra dose if they were shipped by air.
> 
> Of course, the first step would be to assess if this study would have
> the statistical power to show a correlation if there were one.

---The problem with your approach is that the gamma ray radiation you are
considering is, according to LNT, responsible for only about 1% of all
cancers, whereas radon, according to LNT, is responsible for about 10% of
all lung cancers. This is a tremendous advantage for the radon approach.
Also, I doubt if background gamma radiation can be found for anywhere near
as many counties as the 1729 for radon. Another problem is that gamma
radiation levels do not vary much with geography; I doubt if variations by
more than a factor of two would be found, whereas radon levels vary by a
factor of ten or more for different counties.