Re: radon

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

Baker wrote:
> 
> >
> >     This morning driving to work I saw an ad on the rear of a Nashville
> >     Transit bus that almost involved me in an accident!  In very large
> >     letters it proclaimed "RADON...THE SECOND LEADING CAUSE OF LUNG
> >     CANCER" followed by a number to call for more information.  I suppose
> >     we must agree that their statement is correct...provided the study
> >     population is limited to pitchblende miners.  Is anyone aware of a
> >     study that will justify this kind of misinformation?  Does anyone have
> >     any suggestions as to what might be appropriate action?
> >
> >
> 
> An addition to Dr. Gibbs' observation,  I was reading a magazine my
> wife gets titled "Parenting."  (Subscriptions were free to new parents
> and she has continued the subscription for a couple of years now.)  This
> months column on children's health starts out...
> 
>         "Imagine if schools forced children to smoke half a pack of
>         cigarettes a day.  Well, the Environmental Protection Agency
>         has reported that some kids are being subjected to an equivalent
>         lung cancer risk from high levels of radon gas in their schools."
> 
> The article goes on to discuss other "toxins" such as lead and chemicals
> but does state the one out of five schools have unacceptably high levels
> of radon.
> 
> Mike Baker ... mcbaker@students.wisc.edu

Mike, and all:

The reason EPA takes this position is because it's their POLICY; not
because they are unaware of reality. The quotation below deals with Ra,
but the EPA policy statement, quoted below, not only applies to all
radiation sources,  but to all other environmental agents as well
-- 
Wade

mailto hwade@talltown.com

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

Federal Register 56,138:33055; July 18, 1991.
"The Scientific Advisory Board (SAB)/Radiation Advisory Committee (RAC)
urged the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to base its risk
assessment for radium on human epidemiology data on radium watch dial
painters, rather than on modeled estimates, and urged EPA to present its
rationale for adopting the modeling approach for radium risk
assessment.  The SAB/RAC also requested that EPA better describe its
dosimetric model in the revised criteria document, including calculated
doses and risks to organs, and that if EPA continued to use the modeling
approach, uncertainties in the modeling be addressed.

EPA Reply:
The Agency carefully reconsidered this issue.  First it should be
pointed out that all risk estimates are based on both epidemiologic data
and require mathematical modeling.  The EPA uses the wealth of
epidemiologic data on human exposure and risk of radiogenic cancers,
including radium dial painters and epidemiologic data on bone sarcomas
resulting from injection of Ra-224.
The watch dial painter data indicate that the incidence of bone sarcomas
may follow a dose-squared response, especially at higher exposures.  EPA
policy, supported by recommendations of SAB/RAC, is to assess cancer
risks from ionizing radiation as a linear response.  Therefore, use of
the dial painter data requires either deriving a linear risk coefficient
from significantly non-linear exposure-response data, or abandoning EPA
policy and SAB/RAC advice in this case."