Re: Rn discussion

["H.Wade Patterson" <hwade@talltown.com>]

Mickhail V. Zhukovsky wrote, in part:
> 
> Dear Radsafers
> 
> Over 1.5 months we carefully analyzed óohen's data received via Internet.
> We didn't find the combination of factors explaining negative dose-effect.
> Multiply linear regresslon analysis shows that the most significant factors
> increased the lung cancer mortality are smoking, income per capita, the level
> of unemployment and the percent of large industrial enterprises. Mortality
> rate dependence from Rn stay negative.
> 
> Michael Zhukovsky
> Radiation Lab
> Institute of Industrial Ecology
> Ekaterinburg, Russia
> E-mail: Michael@ecko.rcupi.e-burg.su

Dear Mickhail and Radsafe Group:

This is great news!

Please publish your work confirming Cohen's analysis. Your peer-reviewed
and published paper, together with Bogen's theoretical treatment and the
other experimental data from England and Wales by Haynes, and from
France by Dousset, may be enough to change the minds of the few people
who still believe that ordinary residential levels of radon cause
cancer.

Here are the reference to the authors I have cited.
1. Bogen, K. T. Do U.S. county data disprove linear no-threshold
predictions of lung cancer risk for residential radon?-A preliminary
assessment of biological plausibility. Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory, University of California UCRL-JC-123219 Rev.2 :47; 1996   (
to be published in the April, 1997 issue of Human and Ecological Risk
Assessment)
2. Haynes, R. M. The distribution of domestic radon concentrations and
lung cancer mortality in England and Wales. Rad. Prot. Dosim., 25,
2:93-96 1988
3. Dousset, M. Radon in dwellings. Aerobiologia 6:36-38; 1990.
 
Best wishes,

Wade

<hwade@talltown.com>

H.Wade Patterson
1116 Linda Lane
Lakeview OR 97630
ph 541 947-4974