How about the BEIR VI Fallacy?

[MICHAEL S FORD <MFORD@pantex.com>]

OK,  I read the Executive Summary and pulled out a few
choice quotes:

1.  "On the basis of these mechanistic considerations [that
a single alpha particle can cause cancer], and in the
absence of credible evidence to the contrary, the
committee adopted a linear-nonthreshold model for the
relationship between radon exposure and lung-cancer risk. 
However, the committee recognized that it could not
exclude the possibility of a threshold relationship between
exposure and lung cancer risk at very low levels of radon
exposure"

2.  "For estimating the risk of indoor radon, the committee
chose an empirical approach based on analysis of data
from radon-exposed miners."

3.  "Although the case-control studies [of residential radon
exposures] provide direct estimates of indoor risk, the
estimates obtained from these studies are very imprecise,
particularly if estimated for never-smokers or ever-smokers
separately, because the excess lung cancer risk is likely to
be small... [other deficiencies were noted]... Nonetheless,
the committee considered the findings of a meta-analysis
of the 8 completed studies."

4.  "Although a linear-nonthreshold model was selected, the
committee recognized that a threshold -- that is, a level of
exposure with no added risk -- could exist and not be
identifiable from the available epidemiologic data."

5.  "To characterize risks to the population, we have used
the population attributable risk (AR), which indicates how
much of the lung cancer burden could, in theory, be
prevented if all exposures to radon were reduced to
[background]."

6.  "Nonetheless [in describing the range of projected lung
cancers] ,  this indicates a public-health problem and
makes indoor radon the second leading cause of lung
cancer after cigarette-smoking."

"Makes"?  That's quite a leap...  After acknowledging the
potential existence of a threshold, after acknowledging the
high degree of errors in the 8 case-control studies,  after
apparently failing to control for uranium, chemical
carcinogens and gamma ray exposures, after considering
only those "ecological studies" that bolstered the
Committee's model..... they can state unequivocally that
radon is the second leading cause of lung cancer after
cigarette-smoking?

As far as I can see, there's not a shred of proof that can
back up EPA's justification for spending $1.9 million per life
saved in remediating down to 4 pCi/l.  And when Dr. Cohen
undertakes an ecological study on 89% of the US
population (that's over 200 million people) to see if the
BEIR IV model is right (i.e., an attempt at validation), he
gets pounded when his results show an inverse to the
BEIR IV model.  Wouldn't the appropriate response be,
"Wow, we didn't expect that. We might have made some
errors in our assumptions."

Is it OK for the BIER VI committee to use ecological studies
to support their position and reject any other eco studies
that may refute it?

If we were talking about washers and bolts, this would only
be so much tooth-gnashing and mass monologue.  But
we're talking about cancer deaths and making bold,
rock-solid statements that aren't support by the entire body
of data.  And what do we do when our concerned
coworkers or neighbors turn to us for answers?  Shrug? 
Give them the old "one the one hand, but on the other
hand" routine?

Is this another case of "it doesn't really matter 'cause you'll
never see those few cancer deaths in such a large
background"?  Wasn't that the reason nobody got too
upset when folks in the health physics profession
forecasted 30,000 cancer deaths from Chernobyl?  What
about when 100,000 European women had abortions out of
fears of bearing "nuclear mutants" after Chernobyl?  'Kinda
blew right by the 30,000, didn't' we?

This is all just harmless chatter.  Right?

Have a great day!

Michael Ford
Texas Radiation Advisory Board
Amarillo, Texas
mford@pantex.com