Re: Radon therapy versus questionable medical uses -Reply

[Laurie Taylor <laurie-taylor@uiowa.edu>]

Michael,

Bill, while I may come across to you (and others) as some whacko
who thinks everyone should be taking big snoots of radon every
chance they get -- my main concern is that we are scaring the wits
out of people about radon in their homes when we can say with no
measurable confidence that radon at residential levels has any more
effect on a person's health than eating peanut butter on a regular
basis.  And yet, we spend millions of dollars a year and have entire
bureaucracies devoted to *protecting people from radon.*

I, too, tend to think along these thoughts.  There are several questions that I would like answered concerning the EPA's initial screening program for  radon levels in homes and any other screening studies to determine radon levels in homes - 1) did the studies obtain smoking histories - tobacco smoke contains radon daugther products, enough to result in a 1.5 pack a day smoker receiving 16,000 mrem to portions of their bronchial epithelium per year.  Therefore, wouldn't one expect the radon levels in homes were individuals smoked to be artificially elevated?  2) Have the homes been screened for rock wool insulation?  Dr. John Elliot presented his study regarding rock wool during the 1995 Health Physics annual meeting.  and 3) Have allowances been made for the type of heating in the home - electric, gas, steam and coal furnaces.  In eastern PA, many homes still have anthracite coal delivered to their basements for storage and use the coal to heat the homes (uranium and thorium are components of coal and coal ash).  In many ways, I feel that the EPA has definately "jumped the gun" regarding its radon scare, giving the general population just one more reason to fear radiation and nuclear power.  

Also, regarding the uranium miner studies - current knowledge of the health effects of radon progeny is derived mainly from studies of lung cancer in underground uranium miners in the U.S., Canada, Sweden and Czechoslovakia.  Only the U.S. study contains relatively complete smoking histories.  In this study 3/4 of the miners were smokers!!!  Of the 383 cases of lung cancer, 356 (93%) occurred in smokers and 25 occurred in non-smokers - I think this is an important statistic that gets overlooked.  There can be reasons other than radon, why lung cancer occurs in miners - what about asbestos - has anyone studied the geology (mineral anaylses) of these mines to see what type of rock contained the uranium ores? what about the possibility of the inhalation of dust contaminated with molds that are known carcinogens?  has anyone done a comparison of lung cancer in the U.S. uranium miners with other mining populations such as the anthracite coal miners of the Wyoming Valley in PA?  On what basis did the EPA make the jump from uranium miner working air quality conditions to the air quality conditions found in the average home?  They are two very different things.  Ask a coal miner or the relative of one just what it was like to work in the mines in PA and you might understand that a comparison between the two can be pretty hard to make.

Just some Monday morning musings,
Laurie Taylor, Health Physics Associate
The University of Iowa
laurie-taylor@uiowa.edu
319-335-8501


At 03:34 PM 10/16/98 -0500, you wrote:
>Bill, 
>
>>Michael,
>>
>>I personally think the weight of the evidence is stronger to support
>>the assertion that exposure to radon in mines produces lung
>>cancer versus the evidence you cite to support its medicinal
>>properties.  Are you  familiar with the Denver Radium Service's
>>claims in the early 1900s....
>>
>
>First of all, on what basis do you state (in Subject) that current radon
>therapy constitutes a questionable medical use? How much have
>you investigated this?  I would be very interested in knowing.
>
>Secondly, I am familiar with the Denver Radium Service.  Cocaine
>was also legally available in the early 1900s.  The problem with your
>comparison is that radon therapy is STILL being used throughout
>the world TODAY for medicinal purposes.  You can scoff at the
>practice, but it does not change the facts.
>
>Frankly, I find the fact that radon investigators do not delve into
>(read: ignore) the possibility that radon exposures may NOT be
>harmful in a treatment setting to be a bit unsettling.  How large does
>a study group have to be for the FDA to approve a new
>pharmaceutical for clinical use?  If you could do the same with
>radon in a Russian setting, wouldn't that shorten the whole query
>into radon at residential levels?
>
>I wouldn't hesitate to agree that U miners suffered lung cancer due to
>radon exposures acting synergistically with a whole realm of other
>causal factors.  Thus far, attempting to attribute U miner lung cancer
>to ONLY radon exposure has been an exercise in fantasy, not
>science.
>
>Will the results of your Iowa studies demonstrate a strong link
>between radon concentrations and lung cancer incidence?  Or will
>further studies be required?
>>
>>It would be interesting to take a poll of radsfers to see how many
>>drink water from radium vitalizers versus test their home for radon.
>>We would have to modify the question a bit concerning testing to
>>also determine why they test.  Perhaps some individuals seek out
>>homes with high radon concentrations for their therapeutic value.
>>
>I didn't know you could still get a vitalizer!  Do you have one you'd
>like to sell? I never have had any interest in having my house tested
>for radon.  Since the EPA established the 4 pCi/L limit primarily
>based on *technological capabilities,* the need for doing so did not
>seem too pressing.
>
>Bill, while I may come across to you (and others) as some whacko
>who thinks everyone should be taking big snoots of radon every
>chance they get -- my main concern is that we are scaring the wits
>out of people about radon in their homes when we can say with no
>measurable confidence that radon at residential levels has any more
>effect on a person's health than eating peanut butter on a regular
>basis.  And yet, we spend millions of dollars a year and have entire
>bureaucracies devoted to *protecting people from radon.*
>
>We're raiding their wallets and protecting no one.  IMHO.
>Warmest Regards,
>Michael Ford
>TRAB
>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