Re: PA Radon -Reply

[Philippe Duport <pduport@synapse.net>]

Michael,

Re co-carcinogens in mines:
In 1983, SENES Consultants Limited produced an extensive report on the
subject (about 25 mm thick). Title: Potential co-carcinogens in the uranium
mine environment.

SENES Consultants Limited address is

121 Granton Drive, Unit 12
Richmond Hill, Ontario,Canada, L4B 3N4
tel: (905) 764 9380
fax   -----------86

If you have any questions, please contact me at

University of Ottawa
tel (613) 562 5800, ext. 1270
fax ----------5873
pduport@uottawa.ca
+++++++
At 10:01 AM 10/14/1998 -0500, you wrote:
>Tom, regarding your second question:
>
>>
>>2)  Has anyone compiled a complete or near complete list of
>>potential carcinogens to which the miner populations have been
>>exposed?
>>
>
>BEIR IV (pg. 290, Epidemiological Evidence) discusses the fact that
>*more than one etiologic agent might be involved* in uranium miner
>lung cancers, but it goes on to say that radon daughter exposure is
>*generally considered* to be the culprit.  The authors go on to state
>that the epidemiological evidence is extremely weak in this area.
>
>In fact, very few studies have undertaken the question of the
>synergism between all of the agents that uranium miners might face.
> Those that have are *inconclusive.*  Animal studies looking at
>uranium ore exposures in combination with radon daughter
>exposures were undertaken for radon exposures ranging from 300 to
>8500 WLM.  *Exposure periods ranged from about 1 to 10 months;
>exposure rates ranged from less than 10 to hundreds of
>working-level months PER WEEK (my emphasis), the majority
>averaging approximately 200 to 400 WLM/wk.* (BEIR IV, pg. 432)
>
>The report states that the uranium ore dust appeared to have little
>effect on tumor incidence.  However, the uranium dust and radon
>were administered on alternating days, and -- at the WLMs and
>exposure periods cited -- it is easy to see how the radon levels alone
>could dominate the tumorigenesis process.  As is usually the case
>with this report, it goes on to state that *too few animals were used
>to permit a firm conclusion.*
>
>Since epidemiological studies in BEIR IV and elsewhere have long
>lamented the problems of confounding and the lack of reliable
>measurements in the miner studies, I would question why the
>medicinal use of radon in other countries (e.g., Russia) have not
>been considered given the fact that literally millions of people have
>been treated under a medical setting with optimal concentrations of
>950 WL over 8 to 14 day periods.  
>
>This would seem to be an ideal population to study.  If the EPA and
>the CDC were truly interested in determining the health effects of
>radon exposure, it would seem that a study of Russian
>radon-therapy patients would be the most reliable study group to
>examine.
>
>Any comments?
>
>v/r
>Michael
>*************************
>Michael S. Ford, CHP
>Texas Radiation Advisory Board
>Address:
>Radiation Safety Department
>Battelle Pantex
>Amarillo, TX
>806.477.5727 phone
>806.477.4198 fax
>mford@pantex.com
>*************************
>************************************************************************
>The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
>information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
>
>

************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html