Re: English Radon Study

[Bernard L Cohen <blc+@pitt.edu>]

On Thu, 18 Jun 1998 FRAMEP@ORAU.GOV wrote:

> >  This study gave no evidence for increased risk below 150 Bq/m3
> >(4.0 pCi/L). In fact the best fit in this region is to a negative slope.
> 
> So would this be construed as strong support for the EPA 4 pCi/l
> guideline? It sounds like they picked the optimal value.

	The Study gives very little evidence for risk below about 8 pCi/L,
which includes lots of homes EPA considers dangerous. My statement about 4
pCi/L supports the finding of my study which shows that linear-no
threshold theory fails badly in the region below 4 pCi/L, grossly
exaggerating risks in that region. There have been claims that my study is
in conflict with case-control studies, although that is not so, and is not
so in this latest study.
	EPA supports linear-no threshold theory at all levels, and chose 4
pCi/L as a practical matter rather than as an expression of what level is
safe. They freely concede that it is not a "risk-based limit".