Our article on
Lies from Louisville’s Metro Health Department seems to have sparked an unusual amount of reader resistance; particularly on the issue of what we have termed “the radon hoax.” Reader “Dr. Field” says that we are “very ill informed,” and “presenting more disinformation.” He reminds us that his source for the “21,000” yearly radon-caused deaths is a “Dr. Lubin, … a scientist employed by the National Cancer Institute so he does not have to seek funding for research.” We pointed out that Lubin is neither a toxicologist nor a pathologist (he’s not even a medical doctor), and that he has a Ph.D. in something called “biostatistics.” We suggested that 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.”
The National Cancer Institute is, of course, funded by the taxpayers. It’s current budget is almost 5 billion dollars, and its 2010 budget request is for an additional 2 billion, 100 million dollars. Dr. Lubin and his cohorts at NCI are very good at what they do: which is fundraising. Whether they are any good at finding a cure for cancer, is, on the other hand, a matter of some debate. President Nixon declared what came to be known as the “war on cancer” in 1971 in his State of the Union address. At first the war on cancer went poorly: despite a substantial increase in resources, age-adjusted cancer mortality increased by 8 percent between 1971 and 1990. After spending close to a trillion dollars, cancer mortality has started to decrease, but only slightly. Average five-year survival after cancer diagnosis has increased, over the past 50 years, from 50% to about 64%. Good news, but not great news.
Reader Gloria Linnertz suggests we 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.” She urges 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.” Of course the sad anecdotal stories of cancer survivors on the web site are guaranteed to elicit a strong emotional response, but are a poor substitute for cold, hard, scientific fact. Deep in the cansar.org web site, it becomes clear that the bogus uranium miner studies are the source of the organization’s claim that exposure to the EPA’s 4 pCi/L “Action Level” creates a risk of lung cancer. The site claims that it is “…reasonable to
extrapolate from the miner data to a residential situation…” And with that phrase, they give away the game. We’re not talking medical science here; we’re into the wonderland of statistical analysis and fraudulent epidemiology.
Finally, reader “David” contends that “The scientific evidence on radon and lung cancer is as sure as it could ever be maybe you should acutally (sic.) 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!” Well, we have read what the radon hoaxers claim is “scientific evidence,” and remain singularly unimpressed. And, yes, there are problems with the smoking/lung cancer research. Don’t get us started on global warming. “Our type” will tell you more about Al Gore’s little racket than you’d probably care to hear.
Now, to the “scientific evidence” undergirding the radon scare. Unbeknownst to the public, studies often depend upon unproven — and often undisclosed assumptions. For example, the National Cancer Institute recently concluded that radon gas in homes causes 12,000 lung cancer deaths annually. True, some studies show that high levels of radon gas in underground uranium mines increased cancer rates among miners. But, the typical home isn't an underground uranium mine, is it? NCI assumed that because high levels of radon increased cancer rates among miners, then any radon exposure increases cancer risk. This assumption, never scientifically validated, is then extrapolated into a mathematical model that calculates the 12,000 figure.
Not only do many studies of radon in homes contradict this assumption, some even suggest that lower lung cancer rates occur in geographic areas with relatively higher levels of radon. While the Russians and Europeans look to radon for healthful effects (sometime using therapeutic concentrations of 100,000+ pCi/l), our fear-inducing radon industry is making big bucks by scaring the bejesus out of people.
Reader Linnertz suggests that “It's very easy and if the level is 3 or higher, it is not difficult to fix.” Local inspection services will charge you upwards of 200 bucks for a 48-hour measurement of the radon in your basement. Do you think they’ll find radon (the heaviest gas known)? Well, if you live over limestone strata (like in most of Metro Louisville), there is a constant level of background radiation; usually misinterpreted to indicate the presence of radon. You’ll be told "the EPA says that anything above 4 [pCi/l] is unacceptable." Oh yeah, and the remediation costs start at about 2000 dollars.
Much of the support for the radon hoax comes from a 1998 report from the National Research Council, a government-funded private organization, connected to the National Academy of Sciences. ``Radon, particularly in combination with smoking, poses an important public health risk and it should be recognized as such,'' said Dr. Jonathan Samet, a Johns Hopkins University professor and chairman of a NRC radon study committee. Another committee member, Dr. Eric Hall of Columbia University, opined: ``A single Alpha particle is capable of producing quite profound damage.'' The committee noted that lung cancer can result from damage to a single cell.
.jpg)
Based on mathematical models, the committee estimated that radon exposure played a role in 15,400 to 21,800 of the 157,400 lung cancer deaths reported in the United States in 1995. This would mean that radon exposure is second only to cigarette smoking in causing lung cancer. If radon levels in all American homes were reduced below the EPA-recommended levels, the NRC committee concluded, the number of radon-related lung cancer deaths among nonsmokers would be reduced by about 1,000.
According to Jay Lehr, Ph.D., senior scientist with Environmental Education Enterprises, the cancer risk from low-level radiation is normally estimated by use of a linear no-threshold theory, which is a logical consequence of the view that a single particle of radiation hitting a single biological cell can initiate a cancer. The number of these initiating events would then be proportional to the number of particles of radiation and hence the dose. This theory however ignores the obvious biological defense mechanisms that prevent numerous initiating events from developing into cancers each day of our lives.
There is now a substantial body of evidence which has been previously presented by T. D. Luckey (Radiation Hormesis. CRC PRESS, Boca Raton,FL. 1991), T. Sugahara, L. A. Sagan, and T. Aoyama (Low dose irradiation and biological defense mechanisms. Amsterdam: Excerpta Medica: 1992.), and E. J. Calabrese (Biological effects of low level exposures to chemicals and radiation. CRC Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL. 1994.), indicating that low level radiation actually stimulates our biological defense mechanisms to work on our behalf. An early hint of this phenomenon came with detailed studies of those living near World War II atomic bomb blasts. At points distant from the blasts where radiation was minimal but existent, leukemia deaths among A-bomb survivors was below normal, while as expected, closer to the blast where radiation was high, leukemia deaths rose well above normal.
Dr. Lehr suggests that the most persuasive evidence of this reverse phenomenon now appears in the report of the nation’s most comprehensive radon study, which appears in the February 1995 issue of Health Physics (Vol.68, No. 2) presented by Bernard L. Cohen of the University of Pittsburgh. Cohen used radon data from 1601 counties covering more than 80% of the US population. Data was derived either directly from measurements by a University of Pittsburgh research team or by USEPA or from data bases compiled by individual states. The data clearly show that there is a strong tendency for lung cancer rates to decrease with increasing radon exposure. The actual radiation/cancer relationship indicating a decline in cancer with an increase in low level radon radiation is in sharp contrast to the reverse relationship which coincides with the prevailing no threshold theory. (See: Cohen, B.L. Test of the linear-no threshold theory of radiation carcinogenesis for inhaled radon decay products. Health Phys 1995;68:157-174.)
There exists a plethora of articles and advertising focusing on radon gas, radon testing and abatement, primarily from individuals and companies offering testing services or selling radon testing equipment. The Canadian and some European governments have set the "safe" indoor threshold at a level 5 times higher than the United States. This could explain why there is a lesser emphasis on testing and abatement in Canada, than in the United States.
As for the “attack of the number-crunchers” upon us smokers, statistical studies have reported that populations of heavy smokers have gotten lung cancer at a rate 20 times greater than nonsmokers. As a result of such studies, researchers have concluded that smoking "causes" lung cancer. But is the cause-and-effect relationship that simple? Based on American Cancer Society statistics, one of every 10,000 nonsmokers gets lung cancer. If the rate of lung cancer among heavy smokers is 20 times greater, then out of every 10,000 heavy smokers, 20 will get lung cancer. This means that less than 1 percent of heavy smokers (20 out of 10,000) get lung cancer. Bet you never read that statistic in the Courier-Journal!
Keep in mind the recent words of Dr. Charles Hennekens of the Harvard School of Public Health: "Epidemiology is a crude and inexact science. We tend to overstate findings either because we want attention or more grant money."
Maybe you hated math when you were in school. You probably learned the process of extrapolation with exercises such as: “2, 4, 8, 16, what comes next?” If you guessed “32,” you would be correct. That’s the way mathematical progressions work. But the real world of disease etiology doesn’t quite conform to that sort of mathematical prediction. And, when “scientists,” using “extrapolation,” claim that “invisible substances” in your basement are going to kill you, hold on to your wallet. They’re just after your money.
.jpg)
Which of these two bogus charts appears the more "scientific" to you?
Comments
Thank you for the information about radon. You seem to have a chip on your shoulder that is easily noticed while reading between the lines, if you will. Although hard to read, the Columbia University research does support the fact that a single alpha particle can begin the cancer-causing process, and I must say their resumes are just a bit more impressive than yours. So your sarcasm will actually help the readers see through your own BS and their meters will be pegged. I bet radon testing in your area will increase as a result. Also, I think the oncologists that have had to sign death certificates for non-smoking lung cancer patients will agree with the NCI, CDC, EPA and others that radon kills, regardless of how well you are able to reach over your neck and pat yourself on the back. Thank you for helping to convince the readers that radon does indeed kill.
Your statement that "The Canadian and some European governments have set the "safe" indoor threshold at a level 5 times higher than the United States" is incorrect. The Canadian action level has been reduced to 200 Bq/m3 radon in air which is 5.4 pCi/L. Also, your statement about "the remediation costs start at about 2000 dollars" is a gross overstatement. I am not aware of any market where the starting price is $2000.00
Let's just hope that smoking and radon does not cause you to be a lung cancer statistic.
I enjoyed you attack on a credentialled biostatistician (which is the same as epidemiology; some universities have a different name for it), as 'self-styled' whereas your scientific education appears to be... what?
However, assuming you have any understanding of the biological processes surrounding carcinogenesis, you realize anything that causes spurious double strand breaks is pro-tumorigenic.
Also, if you have any understanding of the physics surrounding radioactivity, you know that radon progeny emit very high energy alpha particles, which are very effective at causing double strand breaks.
That said, dose is an important consideration, i.e. how much energy is deposited per volume of tissue (# of alpha particles that rip through your DNA). And what better metric to correlate dose than exposure? So reducing exposure, reduces dose, reduces the possibility of tumorgenesis.
That said, I'm not a huge fan of the LNT model either, but at least I'm educated.
Several readers prefer illogical ad hominem attacks on the author of this piece, rather than any attempt to controvert the factual information presented. Reader Peter Sandwall stops just short of this, with a thinly veiled inquiry concerning our education and credentials. Any argument which devolves into “my expert is smarter than your expert” will accomplish little, and never arrive at the truth. The entire history of science and medicine has involved progress by iconoclasts who challenged the “accepted wisdom” of learned consensus. All the top Gastroenterologists in the world laughed at Australian pathologist Robin Warren in 1979, when he suggested that the stomach was nor really aseptic, after all, and that Helicobacter pylori, a gram-negative biological, was the cause of most peptic ulcers. Scientific debates should be about facts, and not credentials.
For information on radon and its health effects, please see the EPA website - www.epa.gov/radon/ and World Health Organization (WHO) information - www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/env/radon/en/index.html
Exposure to radon decay products is the leading environmental cause of cancer mortality in the United States.
Call 1-800-SOS-RADON to learn more!
Reader Peter Sandwall is at least honest in admitting that there is something unsatisfactory about the linear no-threshold theory. The LNT is first-cousin to that worthless European import, the precautionary principle. Virtually unknown here ten years ago, it is now a U.S. phenomenon. In December 2001 the New York Times Magazine listed the principle as one of the most influential ideas of the year. The precautionary principle is a political, social, and (arguably) moral principle. What it definitely is not, is a scientific principle. Is there any scientific evidence to dispute Dr. Bernard L. Cohen’s study showing that there is a strong tendency for lung cancer rates to decrease with increasing radon exposure? If Cohen’s research is correct, then the LNT and the precautionary principle are false.
Health Phys. 2003 Apr;84(4):526-32
Smoking as a confounder in ecologic correlations of cancer mortality rates with average county radon levels.
Puskin JS ; Office of Radiation and Indoor Air, U.S. EPA, Washington, DC 20460, USA.
Cohen has reported a negative correlation between lung cancer mortality and average radon levels by county. In this paper, the correlation of U.S. county mortality rates for various types of cancers during the period 1970-1994 with Cohen's radon measurements is examined. In general, quantitatively similar, strongly negative correlations are found for cancers strongly linked to cigarette smoking, weaker negative correlations are found for cancers moderately increased by smoking, whereas no such correlation is found for cancers not linked to smoking. The results indicate that the negative trend previously reported for lung cancer can be largely accounted for by a negative correlation between smoking and radon levels across counties.
Reader Dr. Field seems to be quoting the Pushkin study (a meta-analysis, of course) as saying that (1) radon causes cancer, (2) smoking causes cancer, but (3) radon + smoking = less cancer. Your City Hall Examiner is neither an epidemiologist nor a scientist. He's a lawyer, and, therefore, pretty much an expert at recognizing (and dispensing) B.S.
Everyone is exposed to ionizing radiation every day. It's unavoidable and natural. The two main sources of ionizing radiation are the earth and space. Soils and rock contain naturally occurring radioactive elements that either give off radiation or emit radioactive particles. Space is continually bombarding us with cosmic rays. Some human populations have had very, high exposures to ionizing radiation. Survivors of atomic bomb explosions. Uranium miners. Notwithstanding what we know about high levels of ionizing radiation, there is not a generally accepted association between lower levels of ionizing radiation from manmade sources (like medical X-rays) or environmental levels of ionizing radiation from naturally occurring sources (like radon in the home). Years ago, some genius came up with the theory that if something (say radiation) can be harmful at very high exposure levels, in the absence of knowledge to the contrary, it should be assumed it is harmful at any exposure level.
The theory mentioned in our last comment is known in risk assessment circles as the linear nonthreshold model. Remember, all of the LNT extrapolation comes from the “studies” of uranium miners. Yet even those who've studied the miners, such as Dr. Gino Saccomanno of St. Mary's Hospital in Grand Junction, Colo., question whether anything shy of massive radon exposure can kill. Saccomanno has studied uranium miner disease for 40 years, and has by far the largest miner database in the country. He hasn't found a single case of lung cancer among nonsmoking uranium miners who breathe in radon eight hours a day, five days a week. A homeowner would have to breathe in what the EPA considers "dangerous" levels of radon for 400 years to get that kind of exposure. "I hate to see the public get taken like this," an exasperated Saccomanno said.
I want to clear up a few of the many erroneous statements made by Mr. McAdams. The Puskin study demonstrated that Cohen's study was not scientifically valid. Puskin's study was not a meta analysis. A special review performed by the National Council on Radiation Protection also found that the conclusions Dr. Cohen arrived at were not scientifically defensible.
It is EPA that estimates that there are 21,000 lung cancer deaths per year from radon induced lung cancer.
Call 1-800-SOS-RADON for more information.
Reactions.
To "Calvin Murphy" - if you do the job correctly, use high quality material, use trained (and properly compensated) installers, carry radon insurance, are licensed and bonded, mitigation does in fact start at $2000 and head up from there.
Re: Cohen - Dr. Cohen's study was not about whether radon caused lung cancer, it was about the validity of LNT. He concluded that the LNT was invalid. The negative correlation was a very interesting artifact of the study. Google "hormesis" and "radon" for more interesting information.
To "Dr. Field" - I find it telling that you would try to redirect the attention of people looking for facts to an organization that has drunk the kool-aid rather than to present facts. EPA is far more political than scientific and ended all support for radon research in the 90s. EPAs number are based on a model, not demonstrable fact.
I recommend looking at Cohen's own words including his response to Puskin: www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/
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!