Radon Question/Radon Section HPS

[FIELDRW@aol.com]

In a message dated 10/19/98 10:22:53 AM Central Daylight Time, laurie-
taylor@uiowa.edu poses several important questions:

<<  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 daughter 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?  


The radon gas concentration would not be elevated from smoking.  However, the
polonium-210 concentrations may be elevated.  Also, the equilibrium ratios are
generally different in homes of smokers (in part due to increased particulate
matter), who actively smoke in their homes.  Most alpha track, E-PERMS and
charcoal detectors and other radon dosimtery devices are filtered, so in most
cases only the gas is measured.  In addition, charcoal detectors adsorb the
gas, not the progeny.

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.

The EPA did not look at whether or not rock wool was found in the homes during
their nation wide radon gas survey.  What is the Elliot reference, I do not
see his paper in the abstracts presented in 1995?

  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).

Heating type (rather than fuel) does modify the distribution of radon
concentrations between the floors.  For example, homes with forced air heat
generally have less differences between the basement and upper floor radon
concentrations.  In several thousand Iowa homes studied to date, we did not
see a correlation between fuel type and radon concentrations in the home after
adjusting for other factors such as forced air/non forced air, etc.   To my
knowledge, the EPA did not look at fuel type when performing their nationwide
screening survey.


4)   In many ways, I feel that the EPA has definitely "jumped the gun"
regarding its
 radon scare, giving the general population just one more reason to fear
 radiation and nuclear power. 

By the low percentage of homes tested, it does not appear that the EPA has
scared everyone.  Unfortunately, many people, who do not have the money to
test or mitigate, have been frightened by some of the adds.  It is our job as
radiation professionals to educate (keep risks in perspective) and not to
scare.  This is difficult when "the professional" community does not always
agree on the health risks.  I guess for now, we should stand by the HPS
position statement on radon or work to change it.  Take a look at the short
list of members in the radon section of the HPS.  If you are concerned about
the radon issue (risk or overkill), join the radon section of the HPS and make
your concerns heard. 
 
5)  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.  

Radon exposed animal studies have also provided information on the risk posed
by radon exposure.  The animals were not exposed to asbestos and other cancer
causing agents.  The ongoing residential studies will also aid in our
understanding of the lung cancer risk posed by radon. 

 Because smoking causes around 80% of lung cancers, a detailed smoking history
is the most important information that needs collected in any epidemiology
study that examines the cause of lung cancer.  This is why it is extremely
important to collect this information on an individual level and not use mean
smoking rates for a county.

Regards, Bill Field
bill-field@uiowa.edu
Department of Preventive Medicine
University of Iowa  
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html