Re: Request of Information

[JMUCKERHEIDE@delphi.com]

Al Tschaeche wrote:
 
> LAU S HELMUTH wrote:
> 
> > 2. What are the real harmful effects of radon and its progeny to human
> > health and what are the studies that show that up.
> 
> Only uranium miner data show any real harmful effect of radon and its
> progeny to human health.  There are many studies reported in the
> literature on uranium miners in several countries.  I don't have the
> references at my fingertips, but I expect other radsafers do.  There are

There is no evidence that miners were affected, though there is some reason to 
*suspect* there could be some effect at the highest doses. Toxicology studies
show that other "early mine" contaminants are much more toxic/hazardous and
carcinogenic than radon. The studies of miners do not address (and have
limited funding of persons who have proposed research on) these confounding
factors. 

> no studies that show harmful effects at radon levels in houses.  All
> radon risk numbers are extrapolated from the miner data assuming a
> linear relationship between radon level and risk of lung cancer.  There
> are studies that show an inverse relationship between radon levels in
> houses and lung cancer incidence.  Therefore, no one really knows, on
> the basis of human data, whether there are any harmful effects of radon
> at levels found in houses or not.  

We do know. Cohen's studies show CONCLUSIVELY, that there are NO harmful
effects at levels found in houses. His data can be used by anyone to do
further discriminatory analyses with sufficiently large and distinct
populations to test many hypotheses, as he did in part in the 1/97 HPJ. 

In the total absense of ANY contradictory data or analysis, these results are
definitive (though not definitive about the resultant "model", due to the
"ecological fallacy", that specifically addresses the problem of the
analytical effect having NO effect at the low doses). These results have been
confirmed by other more limited and definitive ecological studies and the few
case-control studies with their much more limited numbers and scientific
power, of those that have adequate data to assess the discrimination in dose
and effect (most do not). The more general large Chinese and US population
studies, and studies of smaller higher-dose populations in France and
elsewhere, and those living in the vicinity of radon spas, show *lower* cancer 
rates in the high-dose areas. (More definitive research is not supported.) 

> However, if there are any harmful
> effects, they are so small as to not be observable.  My personal belief
> is that a little radon is good for you.  Look at all the people who go
> to the "baths" in Europe and to the mines in the USA to acquire the
> benefits of exposure to radon and its daughters.  Those people all
> attest to beneficial effects, not harmful ones.  Al Tschaeche
> xat@inel.gov (until 2/28/97)

Rats exposed to equal high doses of radon had 100% cancers at high WL per
month, and no cancers (below normal) at low WL per month. Such data continues
to be generally ignored. It would cause a flurry of research if this were
science, and funding and researchers were not suppressed. 

Thanks, Al.

Regards, Jim Muckerheide
jmuckerheide@delphi.com