Re: Dangers of Radon -- Another View

[Mike Grissom <mikeg@SLAC.Stanford.EDU>]

Radsafers,

In addition to Otto's detailed posting on the BEIR VI roll-out
meeting, the AIP's 'What's New' email newsletter had the
following to say about this issue:

----------

From: whatsnew@aps.org
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 22:44:17 +0000 (GMT)
Subject: What's New for Feb 20, 1998

WHAT'S NEW   Robert L. Park   Friday, 20 Feb 98   Washington, DC

1. RADON: BEIR-VI SAYS THE THRESHOLD DOSE IS ONE ALPHA PARTICLE.  
The sixth National Research Council report on Biological Effects
of Ionizing Radiation deals solely with radon. Its purpose was to
consider new evidence on residential lung-cancer risk obtained
since the 1989 BEIR-IV report. But the report released at a press
conference yesterday could have been taken out of a time capsule. 
It blamed radon for about 18,000 lung cancer deaths per year,
mostly (90%) among smokers. The new figures are still based on a
linear-no-threshold extrapolation from data on uranium miners.
The panelists insisted that repair mechanisms that may produce a
threshold for penetrating radiation (WN 30 Jan 98) are not
relevant to alpha particle damage. The report acknowledged that a
threshold could exist and not be identified from the data.  A
preemptive strike was launched a day earlier by a group called
Radiation, Science & Health, which held its own press conference
to argue that, even at the highest residential exposures, radon
is not only harmless, but beneficial.  Studies by physicist
Bernard Cohen found lung cancer rates are consistently lowest in
areas where radon levels are highest. Such "ecological" evidence
was dismissed by BEIR-VI, which relied entirely on case control
studies. This is reminiscent of the debate between physicists and
epidemiologists in the EMF wars.  The physicists were right.

...

----------