PA Radon

[tmohaupt@wright.edu]

An interesting insight in the article that said that everyone in 
Pennsylvania should have their homes tested for radon because all of 
PA's counties have had elevated findings.

Here is some information from the SEER report published by the 
National Cancer Institute.  The values are average annual 
age-adjusted lung and bronchus cancer mortality rates by state for 
1987-1991.  The rating system lists 1 as the highest level to 51, the 
lowest.  Washington, DC is included.  The rates are per 100,000 and 
are age-adjusted to the 1970 standard population.  The odds ratio is 
something I added.  It's a simple ratio of the state's rate to that 
of KY.  The average rate for all U.S. states and DC, by the way, is 49.3.
State                   Rate                Rank         Odds Ratio 
Kentucky             65.5                   1                     1
Pennsylvania      47.9                   31                   0. 73
Colorado             36.4                  48                    0.56
New Mexico       34.9                  49                    0.53
Hawaii                34.3                   50                    0.52
Utah                   21.9                    51                    0.33

You may use these data however you wish.  I have some problems with 
the EPA's stand on radon.
(1)  "Radon IS the second leading cause of cancer."  The IS suggests 
scientific certainty, which I do not believe holds for all data.  It 
wouldn't chaff me so badly if they said "Radon MAY be the second 
leading cause of cancer." or "Radon is the second leading cause of 
cancer IF the EPA model of risk is accurate, taking into account that 
primary data set consists of miners who were exposed to ennumerable 
lung contaminants that are potential carcinogens."
(2)  "Radon causes 7000 to 30,000 cancers each year."  As a minimum 
the bottom number should be ZERO.  The same goes for the FRG-13 
report.
(3)  The EPA says that radon awareness will save X number of lives 
each year and yet there is no method to measure the effectiveness.  
It the rates go down they extoll the effectiveness of their program.  
If the rates go up or remain the same, they say other factors were 
involved.  The EPA should have specific means of measuring the 
effectiveness in reducing radon levels. For example, the Pennsylvania 
rates should decrease by 5% over a set period of time in addition to 
any decrease seen from the effectiveness of smoking ceasation and 
prevention programs.

Of course, I agree that the EPA should encourage homeowners to test
their abodes for radon; however, their tactics are scarier than radon 
itself.

Tom

My opinions.
Tom Mohaupt, MS, CHP
Wright State University
Radiation Safety Officer

Voice:  (937) 775-2169
Fax:  (937) 775-3301
E-mail:  tmohaupt@wright.edu
Address:  104 Health Sciences Bldg, Wright State University
          Dayton, OH 45435
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html