----- Original Message ----- From: "Deborah Harrell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, July 01, 2005 4:00 PM Subject: [Listref] Linear risk or not? X marks the spot...
> This report is cited by both 'sides,' so it must be > correct! > > http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8389834/ > Even very low doses of radiation pose a risk of cancer > over a person's lifetime, a National Academy of > Sciences panel concluded. It rejected some scientists' > arguments that tiny doses are harmless or may in fact > be beneficial. The findings, disclosed in a report > Wednesday, could influence the maximum radiation > levels that are allowed at abandoned reactors and > other nuclear sites and raises warnings about > excessive exposure to radiation for medical purposes > such as repeated whole-body CT scans. I saw that in the news earlier and was rather interested to see the studies that were refernced. In particular, we should expect to see 2% to 3% differences in the number of people who get cancer simply as a function of where they live as a result of this radiation. In particular, one would expect a very strong signal in lung cancers in people who don't smoke in high radon areas compared to those in low radon areas. Since lung cancer among non-smokers is moderately rare, I'd guess that a an area that gets 1% more lung cancer in non-smokers would be easy to see....especially when we know exactly where to look. But, alas, just general conclusions are given. I've seen papers arguing that the effect is seen when proper data cuts and compensations for other factors are made, but I'd like to see how they were done. So far, I've had no luck with finding such explainations. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
