The hits just keep on coming from Louisville’s Health Department. Several years ago, representatives from the Health Department tried to talk the old Board of Aldermen into passing an ordinance that would have required radon abatement equipment in virtually every home in Louisville. This would have added significantly to the cost of new home construction, and would have necessitated digging up existing basements to install a series of pipes to vent the “deadly radon gas” to the outside air.
Fortunately, cooler heads prevailed, and the Aldermen, when presented with scientific evidence that the radon scare was largely a manufactured hoax perpetrated by the “public health industry,” demurred. Look for this madness to return, however, since the Louisville Metro Department of Public Health and Wellness (LMDPHAW) has listed radon on its website as the “second leading cause of lung cancer.” They list no research studies to support this conclusion, because none exist.
Dr. Adewale Troutman, the Director of LMDPHAW, is now going around town talking up Louisville’s draconian indoor smoking prohibition ordinance. “There is no doubt,” he says, “that secondhand smoke poses a significant health risk.” Troutman continues to cite the discredited “Helena study,” which purports to show that, during a six-month period in which that Montana town outlawed indoor smoking (after which the city council changed its mind and rescinded the silly law), heart attacks dropped by 40 percent.
This much-touted “study,” performed by anti-smoking activist Dr. Stanton Glanz (not a medical doctor; his Ph.D. is in applied mechanics and engineering economic systems), is so unscientific as to be comical. With what is known about the etiology and progress of coronary artery disease, are we really to believe that an illness that takes decades to develop will suddenly dissipate within weeks of a ban on indoor smoking?
.jpg)
Dr. Adewale Troutman
The conclusions of the Helena study were totally debunked by an April, 2004, article in the British Medical Journal. Scientific test studies of second-hand smoke exposure have been conducted where non-smoking hospitality industry workers wear electronic monitors that measure second-hand smoke exposure in the workplace. Studies like the Oak Ridge Laboratories study found that non-smokers working a 40-hour work-week would ingest the equivalent of 10 to 15 cigarettes per year, working in a poorly ventilated hospitality venue.
In a well-ventilated hospital industry venue, the same worker would only ingest the equivalent of two to four cigarettes per year, working a 40-hour work-week. Hardly a form of measurable health risk. The “secondhand-smoke kills” sham was and is a methodology used to denormalize smoking in modern society.
If this is representative of the level of “scientific” evidence used by Troutman and the Metro Council to abrogate the civil rights of Louisville’s smoking public, then the inmates have surely taken over the management of the asylum.
NOTE: As an aside, you may question the use of the term “civil rights” with reference to smoking. Your attention is directed to Kentucky’s Civil Rights Act, KRS 344.040, which protects your right to smoke.
Read more: The facts on the Helena Study
Read more: The British Medical Journal debunking of the Helena Study
Comments
Mr. McAdams is very ill informed. Radon causes 21,ooo deaths in the United States each year. www.radonleaders.org/node/398
Dr. Field is more than welcome to disagree with our conclusions concerning the radon scam, but he is incorrect in asserting that we are “ill informed.” His citation about the “21,000 radon deaths” comes from an article by Dr. Jay H. Lubin with the National Cancer Institute. Lubin claims that “Between 16,000 and 23,000 people are estimated to die annually from lung cancer caused by radon.” The reason he says “estimated,” is because Lubin is neither a toxicologist nor a pathologist; he’s not even a medical doctor. Dr. Lubin received a Ph.D. in something called “biostatistics,” from the University of Washington.
In truth, Dr. Lubin is a self-styled epidemiologist, hustling for federal grant money to justify his attempts at scaring the crap out of homeowners by claiming they have deadly gas in their basements. There is no, repeat, no clinical or experimental scientific evidence that radon gas has ever killed anyone. (more to follow)
(continued) Scientists do not even know how to detect radon, outside of laboratory settings. The “radon detectors” these hustlers want to sell you are merely low-level radiation detectors, which measure the normal background radiation existing everywhere on our planet.
If Dr. Field will simply Google “Radon Hoax,” he will get over 14,000 hits, and will perhaps become as informed as your Louisville City Hall Examiner.
Radon is one of the most studied environmental risks in history. Its dangers are very well understood. The risk estimates are derived from a National Academy of Sciences review of hundreds of studies and more recently backed up by residential studies. www.epa.gov/radon/healthrisks.html You are welcome to make your own decisions about personal risk, but don't assume people who don't share your views are quacks. Very irresponsible reporting.
Please go to www.cansar.org to see the faces and read the stories of some of the individuals that discovered they were living with high levels of radon only after being diagnosed with lung cancer. Lung cancer is the leading cancer killer.
Most people are ignorant of the danger of radioactive radon gas. I urge all readers to test their homes for radon. It's very easy and if the level is 3 or higher, it is not difficult to fix. New homes need to be constructed with radon control methods, schools and workplaces need to be tested and mitigated if high. Landlords need to provide safe rental property for their tenants by testing for radon and mitigating if high.
There aren't thousands of lung cancer survivors marching and carrying banners because in reality, very few cancer victims survive over five years. The fact is that most lung cancer victims are diagnosed in late stages because there usually are not distinctive symptoms. Prevention is the cure!
MR. McMaddens, You are totally wrong and are doing a great disservice to the public health of people in your state. The scientific evidence on radon and lung cancer is as sure as it could ever be maybe you should acutally read it! I am sure you also believe that smoking does not cause lung cancer and that global climate change is also a myth, your type usually does!
Mr. McAdam,
Again, you are presenting more disinformation. Dr. Lubin is a scientist employed by the National Cancer Institute so he does not have to seek funding for research. The source of the 21,000 lung cancer deaths per year attributed to radon is from the US EPA. Radon testing is easy to perform and inexpensive - call 1-800-SOS-RADON.
I provide testing and mitigation, so I have decided to learn what I can. 21,000 deaths is based on a model, not facts. BEIR VI, a report that EPA bases its model upon, says "Most of the radon-related deaths among smokers would not have occurred if the victims had not smoked." It also says, "perhaps one-third could be avoided by reducing radon in homes where it is above the "action guideline level" of 148 Bqm-3 (4 pCiL-1) to below the action levels recommended by the Environmental Protection Agency." This tells me that far more "radon" deaths could be prevented by decreasing smoking than by mitigating. This would also save smoking deaths and would save consumers money, not cost them money. Plus, the model is based on a 70 year, 18 hour per day exposure.I believe the money spent on radon could save far more lives in other areas.
Every study I have read concludes not that radon kills people, but that there could be an effect, but it is less than the margin of error.
Mr. McAdam,
You made the lazy-headed statement: "They list no research studies to support this conclusion, because none exist."
Perhaps you have some conflict of interest here as past/present legal counsel to the Louisville Board of Alderman.
There is abundant, reputable research concluding increased lung cancer risk by prolonged exposure to elevated radon levels. Start with the BEIR VI report.
The National Research Council has published the report, entitled: "Health Effects of Exposure to Radon: BEIR VI, Committee on Health Risks of Exposure to Radon (BEIR VI)". This report by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) is the most definitive accumulation of scientific data on indoor radon. The report confirms that radon is the second leading cause of lung cancer in the U.S. and that it causes an estimated 15,400 or 21,800 deaths a year.
Think we just found our rat for a science experiment on radon and second hand smoke. I am a Licensed Professional Engineer and my studies show quite the opposite confirming the Radon linked 21,000 deaths have got to be very close to true. Although my study needs more data to be statistically significant it proves radon is without doubt dangerous. We can be repeatedly test for and easily confirm levels over and over in a home, don’t understand where he got his information from. Our author must be talking from exceptionally poor information and without question lack of facts. If he believes everything printed on the internet is true why not believe the doctors, physicists, and engineers worldwide. Disappointed this article got printed. Dangerous what people can conclude from printed articles like this. Leave it up to a tobacco lawyer to speak about public health concerns.
BEIR VI does indeed say "the committee concluded that exposure to radon in homes is *expected* [*s are mine] to be a cause of lung cancer in the general population," and their two *models* [again *s are mine] predict 15,400 or 21,800.
It also says the two things I mentioned in my earlier post.
Plus: "studies have not produced a definitive answer, primarily because the risk is likely to be very small at the low exposure encountered from most homes."
And: "deaths from radon-attributable lung cancer in smokers could most efficiently be reduced through tobacco-control measures."
Is radon dangerous? As near as I can tell, by looking into it myself rather than listening to the "experts" (who make their living at fixing the "problem"), the answer is "maybe a little, but we can't really prove it." I think you can add more expected days to your life by losing that extra 15 pounds, exercising a little, and getting enough sleep than by spending thousands mitigating.
Reader McCoy thinks we might have a "conflict of interest" from past representation of the Board of Aldermen; a non sequitur if ever we heard one. Reader Roger calls us a rat and a "tobacco lawyer;" at least one of which epithet is untrue. The only "scientific" evidence either can quote are the bizzare epidemiological extrapolations and "estimates" being shoveled out by the radon hoaxters. Read our follow-up, "More on the radon hoax," and try to look up any of the big words you don't understand. And, if anyone can supply us with a death certificate or autopsy report of any person who actually died from exposure to radon, we will reward them with a One-Year Free Subscription to the Louisville Examiner. And thank God for Anonymous Radon Guy!
I certainly agree 100% with Dr. Bill Field that Mr. McAdams is very ill informed. Mr McAdams is also clearly ignorant of the fact that radon indeed does cause lung cancer. Speaking as a radon induced lung cancer survivor, I find his thinking shallow at best. He is a disgrace to those of us trying to promote radon education and awareness.
shallow at
I am also a cancer survivor - 19 years out now. Although it was not lung cancer, I can not only sympathize, but empathize with the terror that a cancer diagnosis unleashes. Forgive me for pointing out that it is not possible to attribute lung cancer specifically to radon.
I won't say that radon *can't* cause lung cancer. I only say that after my (continuing) review of literature, I still don't believe that a causal link has been proven. If one exists, it seems to be quite weak at radon levels below 20 pCi/L and more. At least two studies I know of have observed a decrease in lung cancer with rising radon at typical household levels.
My point is that if one wishes to save lives, there are many other areas where more lives can be saved per dollar spent, where cause and effect are much more strongly observable. The medical journal Lancet says that between 111,909 and 365,000 deaths are caused per year in the US by overweight and obesity ("Obesity". Lancet 366 (9492): 1197–209).
The Examiner is really engaging in very irresponsible journalism here. If it weren't such a real life-or-death issue, it would be laughable to characterize as a hoax the scientific evidence about the carcinogenicity of radon gas and the fact that millions of people annually are exposed to this gas in their homes and in other buildings. The evidence about radon's deadliness is real, as many other commenters have ably summarized. Radon is one of many indoor environmental hazards described on the website of the non-profit Alliance for Healthy Homes website. See www.afhh.org/hhe/hhe_radon.htm for additional factual information.
The BS meter at the beginning of the article very appropriately comes up on my computer as "man the life boat" indicating to me that the information about lung cancer caused by radon in Mr. McAdams article is treated beyond recognition from reality. In his defence I admit that Radon-health risk scientific articles can be hard to read and hard to interpret correctly. I would not trust Mr John McAdams to give us a correct interpretation from his level of understanding of the information displayed in this article.
On the other hand in my opinion Dr. Field's comments and links he points to should be followed by any interested reader on this topic.
I give this article by Mr John McAdams a thumbs down.
It would be great to find out that radon was a hoax and something we need not be concerned with. The truth is we have lots of invisible pollutants in the air that we must measure and assess and study. Radon is not new to us and has been well-studied.
One of the definitions of "hoax" is 'Something that has been established or accepted by fraudulent means.'
It would be a great insult to a great body of scientists with very big minds who have studied radon (for many years) for someone to claim they have not done adequate study and that their conclusions are "fraudulent". Heck, if someone actually could prove such a thing....they could probably form a wonderful lawsuit...don't you think?
Actually the Helena study has been replicated at least 11 times in peer reviewed published studies and it looks like a 15-20% reduction in heart attacks is likely after a smoke-free law...
Reader Bill is correct that a number of number-crunching health nazis have attempted to jump upon Stanton Glanz's "Helena miracle" bandwagon. For a more accurate review of large-scale studies of the relationship between smoking prohibition and AMI hospital admissions, Google: Kuneman hospital admissions.
So you want us to believe a pro-smoking advocate over studies that have been published in peer reviewed scientific journals? How about the Scotland Study published in the British Medical Journal that also looked at smoking status?
David Kuneman has no articles that have been published on this issue by a scientific journal that I can find, wonder why.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!