Re: RADON - Ecologic Studies -Reply

["Gerald Falo"<gerald_falo_at_chppm7__apgea@chppm-ccmail.apgea.army.mil>]

     Hello All,
     
     I don't know all the details of Dr. Cohen's study.  I'm not an 
     epidemiologist.  But I do know that no matter how powerful the 
     *ecologic study* is, Dr. Cohen's results can not be extended to all 
     radiation under all conditions.
     
     All experiments are conditional in that they test for specific results 
     under specific conditions.  I believe Dr. Cohen's study to be a 
     powerful challenge to linearity for radon exposure and by implication 
     radiation exposure to the lungs with lung cancer as the endpoint.
     
     As for data to disprove linearity, I don't believe that any one 
     disputes that the studies are out there.  The dispute seems to be over 
     the quality of the data.  I'm also afraid that I'm beginning to detect 
     a *harshness* in the discussions that is unseemly.
     
     Also, I've noted a underlying theme that the LNT has caused public 
     fear and political gridlock in dealing with radiation safety.  I would 
     like to see some hard evidence of this.  My limited experience with 
     public media indicates the most vocal opponents of radiation are not 
     LNT supporters, but they seem to be followers of Gofman, Tamplin, 
     Sternglass, Gould, Caldicott....and so on.  How many of the ICRP, 
     NCRP, EPA, and so on do we see at protest marches and haranguing 
     politicians.
     
     I for one appreciate the ongoing debate here on RADSAFE, and perhaps 
     the HPS can organize a symposium and publish the proceedings that can 
     be review in a more convenient form.
     
     Jerry Falo
     jer3ry@aol.com