Re: How about the BEIR VI Fallacy?

[Ruth Weiner <rfweine@sandia.gov>]

     Really good points!  However, on RADSAFE we are more or less preaching 
     to the choir.  Has anyone thought about a good way to get to the 
     National Academy or the BEIR Committee, or even get some public 
     questioning?  
     
     Clearly only my own opinion.
     
     
Ruth F. Weiner, Ph. D.
Transportation Systems Department
Sandia National Laboratories
Mail Stop 0718
P. O. Box 5800
Albuquerque, NM 87185-0718
505-844-4791
505-844-0244 (fax)
rfweine@sandia.gov

______________________________ Reply Separator 
_________________________________
Subject: How about the BEIR VI Fallacy?
Author:  MFORD@pantex.com at hubsmtp
Date:    2/26/98 8:17 AM


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