On 26/04/2019 23:12, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Vir Campestris
wrote:

On 26/04/2019 08:36, RJH wrote:

A more recent article written by health professionals ('yours' is
written by an economic geographer):

"Radon is the second leading cause of lung cancer among smokers and
the leading cause among non-smokers . . . Lung cancer is the leading
cause of cancer death in the United States (US), and smoking is the
strongest risk factor for the disease [1]. The second greatest risk
factor is exposure to radon, which causes approximately 21,000 cases
of lung cancer per year [2€“8]. High levels of radon exposure in homes
have been associated with lung cancer risk, regardless of the
patients smoking status, according to analyses of pooled data from
multiple studies in China, Europe, and North America" (p.962)

Acree, P., Puckett, M., & Neri, A. (2017). Evaluating Progress in
Radon Control Activities for Lung Cancer Prevention in National
Comprehensive Cancer Control Program Plans, 2011€“2015. Journal of
Community Health, 42(5), 962€“967.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10900-017-0342-7

Thank you. That does indeed suggest there is a risk. Summary suggests
a couple of thousand cases annually in the USA.

If I lived in a granite area I think I'd follow more of the links!

What does "strongest risk factor" and "lung cancer risk" mean in terms
of extra cases of it happening? We're all at risk of lots of things,
the real question is how big is the risk.


In the US, that research suggests exposure to certain levels of radon is
the cause of 21000 cases of lung cancer each year. See what I did there :-)

But there are compound factors - smoking seems to be the largest. When I
looked in to it a while back*, high radon and smoking looked pretty much
a flip of a coin whether you'd get lung cancer. But I'm far from an
expert - you'd need to know a lot about cancer, buildings, statistics
*and* demography (etc.) to get even close to understanding the real
risk. Which I don't.

* I lived in Bakewell for a while - high radon, apparently. I bought a
crude/cheap (but common there) radon meter, imported from the States,
which does seem to reflect the indications on radon maps in the 3
properties I've tried it in.

--
Cheers, Rob

On 26/04/2019 21:53, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 26/04/2019 08:36, RJH wrote:

A more recent article written by health professionals ('yours' is
written by an economic geographer):

"Radon is the second leading cause of lung cancer among smokers and
the leading cause among non-smokers . . . Lung cancer is the leading
cause of cancer death in the United States (US), and smoking is the
strongest risk factor for the disease [1]. The second greatest risk
factor is exposure to radon, which causes approximately 21,000 cases
of lung cancer per year [2€“8]. High levels of radon exposure in homes
have been associated with lung cancer risk, regardless of the
patients smoking status, according to analyses of pooled data from
multiple studies in China, Europe, and North America" (p.962)

Acree, P., Puckett, M., & Neri, A. (2017). Evaluating Progress in
Radon Control Activities for Lung Cancer Prevention in National
Comprehensive Cancer Control Program Plans, 2011€“2015. Journal of
Community Health, 42(5), 962€“967.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10900-017-0342-7

Thank you. That does indeed suggest there is a risk.

No. It suggests that there is a perception of risk.


Summary suggests a
couple of thousand cases annually in the USA.

If I lived in a granite area I think I'd follow more of the links!

Andy


--
Gun Control: The law that ensures that only criminals have guns.

On 26/04/2019 23:12, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Vir Campestris
wrote:

On 26/04/2019 08:36, RJH wrote:

A more recent article written by health professionals ('yours' is
written by an economic geographer):

"Radon is the second leading cause of lung cancer among smokers and
the leading cause among non-smokers . . . Lung cancer is the leading
cause of cancer death in the United States (US), and smoking is the
strongest risk factor for the disease [1]. The second greatest risk
factor is exposure to radon, which causes approximately 21,000 cases
of lung cancer per year [2€“8]. High levels of radon exposure in homes
have been associated with lung cancer risk, regardless of the
patients smoking status, according to analyses of pooled data from
multiple studies in China, Europe, and North America" (p.962)

Acree, P., Puckett, M., & Neri, A. (2017). Evaluating Progress in
Radon Control Activities for Lung Cancer Prevention in National
Comprehensive Cancer Control Program Plans, 2011€“2015. Journal of
Community Health, 42(5), 962€“967.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10900-017-0342-7

Thank you. That does indeed suggest there is a risk. Summary suggests
a couple of thousand cases annually in the USA.

If I lived in a granite area I think I'd follow more of the links!

What does "strongest risk factor" and "lung cancer risk" mean in terms
of extra cases of it happening? We're all at risk of lots of things,
the real question is how big is the risk.

IIRC if you are a smoker there is anout a 10% -15% increased risk of
lung cancer.

If you dont smoke there is no increased risk.

In general you need something in excess of a single 200msV dose
exposure to increase risks of anything.

Radiation therapy for cancer exposes part of the body to doses in excess
of 20Sv which if applied to the whole body would be lethal.

In practice at that level there is a 10-15% increase in chances for an
unrelated cancer to develop in a decade or two.

In parts of the world 200mSv per year is natural background level.

There is no perceptible increased rate of cancer.




--
Canada is all right really, though not for the whole weekend.

"Saki"

On 27/04/2019 10:14, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
IIRC if you are aÂ* smoker there is anout a 10% -15% increased risk of
lung cancer.

If you dont smoke there is no increased risk.

Did you follow all the links?

We've got one saying the increased risk is only to smokers. Another
suggesting that in the USA there are a couple of thousand radon linked
excess deaths each year - and they seem to have controlled for smoking.

Andy

On 28/04/2019 21:17, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 27/04/2019 10:14, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
IIRC if you are aÂ* smoker there is anout a 10% -15% increased risk of
lung cancer.

If you dont smoke there is no increased risk.


Statistics/research suggest otherwise.

Did you follow all the links?


I'd doubt it. And those that don't fit are usually dismissed out of hand
as biased, vested interests etc.

We've got one saying the increased risk is only to smokers. Another
suggesting that in the USA there are a couple of thousand radon linked
excess deaths each year - and they seem to have controlled for smoking.


It's a manageable, and small, risk. Personally, I'd manage it - but
that's largely because I could afford to. And there's a history of lung
cancer in my family.

There'd have to be a point at which I wouldn't - where cost and other
obstacles make the risk one I'd take. The thing is to be reasonably
informed.


--
Cheers, Rob

On 29/04/2019 09:44, RJH wrote:
On 28/04/2019 21:17, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 27/04/2019 10:14, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
IIRC if you are aÂ* smoker there is anout a 10% -15% increased risk of
lung cancer.

If you dont smoke there is no increased risk.


Statistics/research suggest otherwise.

Statistics do not,. Research may becuase of confirmation bias.

Did you follow all the links?


I'd doubt it. And those that don't fit are usually dismissed out of hand
as biased, vested interests etc.

The fact is if you bother to try and undtersand the staticistcs is that
we are looking at a variation in a very snmall number of cases of cancer
in a very small population...

We've got one saying the increased risk is only to smokers. Another
suggesting that in the USA there are a couple of thousand radon linked
excess deaths each year - and they seem to have controlled for smoking.


See the above. What generally happens here is thet people take the LNT
MODEL and project from it an excess of cancer deaths.
These never ever show upo in studies though.

As with climate change what a faux model based on geovernment regulatins
suggests and what is in practice measured are two different things.





It's a manageable, and small, risk. Personally, I'd manage it - but
that's largely because I could afford to. And there's a history of lung
cancer in my family.


But you dont live in a raidaoactive region. and you are implying that
lung cancer is a genetic, not environmental risk. Make up your mind!


There'd have to be a point at which I wouldn't - where cost and other
obstacles make the risk one I'd take. The thing is to be reasonably
informed.

Very hard to be reasonably informed. Very easy to be unreasonably
misinformed.




--
If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will
eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such
time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic
and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally
important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for
the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the
truth is the greatest enemy of the State.

Joseph Goebbels

On 29/04/2019 11:14, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 29/04/2019 09:44, RJH wrote:
On 28/04/2019 21:17, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 27/04/2019 10:14, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
IIRC if you are aÂ* smoker there is anout a 10% -15% increased risk
of lung cancer.

If you dont smoke there is no increased risk.


Statistics/research suggest otherwise.

Statistics do not,. Research may becuase of confirmation bias.

Did you follow all the links?


I'd doubt it. And those that don't fit are usually dismissed out of
hand as biased, vested interests etc.

The fact is if you bother to try and undtersand the staticistcs is that
we are looking at a variation in a very snmall number of cases of cancer
in a very small population...


As I've tried to explain upthread - you need to be skilled in
statistical methods *and* demographics, cancer, geology and building
construction/design. And that's just what I can think of.

We've got one saying the increased risk is only to smokers. Another
suggesting that in the USA there are a couple of thousand radon
linked excess deaths each year - and they seem to have controlled for
smoking.


See the above. What generally happens here is thet people take the LNT
MODEL and project from it an excess of cancer deaths.
These never ever show upo in studies though.

As with climate change what a faux model based on geovernment regulatins
suggests and what is in practice measured are two different things.


I'm not sure if that's badly written or I don't understand what you're
saying.


It's a manageable, and small, risk. Personally, I'd manage it - but
that's largely because I could afford to. And there's a history of
lung cancer in my family.


But you dont live in a raidaoactive region. and you are implying that
lung cancer is a genetic, not environmental risk. Make up your mind!


Cancer - indeed, most diseases and illnesses - have a combination of
causes: genetic predisposition, personal traits, environmental
conditions (including your 'social environment' - class, poverty,
housing etc) and luck.

There'd have to be a point at which I wouldn't - where cost and other
obstacles make the risk one I'd take. The thing is to be reasonably
informed.

Very hard to be reasonably informed. Very easy to be unreasonably
misinformed.


Yep.


--
Cheers, Rob

On 29/04/2019 12:52, RJH wrote:

As with climate change, what a faux model based on government
regulations suggests, and what is in practice measured, are two different
things.


I'm not sure if that's badly written or I don't understand what you're
saying.

Punctuation added,

Better?

--
"The great thing about Glasgow is that if there's a nuclear attack it'll
look exactly the same afterwards."

Billy Connolly

On 29/04/2019 15:55, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , RJH wrote:

On 29/04/2019 11:14, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

As with climate change what a faux model based on geovernment
regulatins suggests and what is in practice measured are two
different things.

I'm not sure if that's badly written or I don't understand what you're
saying.

If a model is based on false assumptions then it will produce rubbish
results. So your first question when faced with "Our modelling shows
that ..." is to ask what assumptions are built into the model.

To be more exact the basis of government legislation about radiation is
a thoroughly dicsredited notion - that cumulateive exposure to low level
radiation is linearly associated with the risk of getting cancer.,
Both propositions are wrong.

It seems that what counts is peak short term exposure, and its highly
non linear.


--
"The great thing about Glasgow is that if there's a nuclear attack it'll
look exactly the same afterwards."

Billy Connolly

On 29/04/2019 17:12, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 29/04/2019 15:55, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , RJH wrote:

On 29/04/2019 11:14, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

As with climate change what a faux model based on geovernment
regulatins suggests and what is in practice measured are two
different things.

I'm not sure if that's badly written or I don't understand what
you're saying.

If a model is based on false assumptions then it will produce rubbish
results. So your first question when faced with "Our modelling shows
that ..." is to ask what assumptions are built into the model.

To be more exact the basis of government legislation about radiation is
a thoroughly dicsredited notion - that cumulateive exposure to low level
Â*radiation is linearly associated with the risk of getting cancer.,
Both propositions are wrong.

It seems that what counts is peak short term exposure, and its highly
non linear.


I'll give you a more succinct summary, suggesting that you're mistaken:

Conclusions: Collectively, though not separately, these studies show
appreciable hazards from residential radon, particularly for smokers and
recent ex-smokers, and indicate that it is responsible for about 2% of
all deaths from cancer in Europe.


Radon in homes and risk of lung cancer: collaborative analysis of
individual data from 13 European case-control studies
S Darby, D Hill, A Auvinen, J M Barros-Dios, H Baysson, F Bochicchio, H
Deo, R Falk, F Forastiere, M Hakama, I Heid, L Kreienbrock, M Kreuzer, F
Lagarde, I Mäkeläinen, C Muirhead, W Oberaigner, G Pershagen, A
Ruano-Ravina, E Ruosteenoja, A Schaffrath Rosario, M Tirmarche, L
Toma�sek, E Whitley, H-E Wichmann and R Doll
BMJ 2005;330;223-; originally published online 21 Dec 2004;
doi:10.1136/bmj.38308.477650.63


--
Cheers, Rob

On 29/04/2019 17:08, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 29/04/2019 12:52, RJH wrote:

As with climate change, what a faux model based on government
regulations suggests, and what is in practice measured, are two
different things.


I'm not sure if that's badly written or I don't understand what you're
saying.

Punctuation added,

Better?


Well, yes. But incidence of cancer/radon is measured, and present.

I take it the 2 papers I mentioned are, in your opinion, biased and in
the pay of the radon reduction industry?

--
Cheers, Rob

On Tuesday, 23 April 2019 17:27:23 UTC+1, charles wrote:
In article ,
harry wrote:
On Tuesday, 23 April 2019 15:52:12 UTC+1, Clive Arthur wrote:
Thinking of moving to west Cornwall. I'm used to old brick built houses
here, but there they're mainly old stone houses. We'd be looking at a
terrace to start until we can sell here.

One we saw had a downstairs fireplace intact but the upstairs fireplace
removed. The hearthstone was still there but someone appears to have
stolen the chimney breast, though the chimney is still on the roof.

Here, I'd be very concerned, but the agent seemed to think it was quite
normal. What witchcraft is this, does it mean that the flues are
incorporated into the thickness of the wall and there was no chimney
breast?

Also, brick terraces can be quite noisy, side to side. Should I expect
that a stone terrace is better in this respect?


Cornwall- think Radon.

everybody in Cormwall is killed of by radiation? I think not.


Not everyone: I think the figure is that about 1000 people a year die from lung cancer caused by radon in the home in the UK.

Robert

On 29/04/2019 19:18, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Mon, 29 Apr 2019 18:58:44 +0100, RJH wrote:

On 29/04/2019 17:12, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

snip

To be more exact the basis of government legislation about radiation is
a thoroughly dicsredited notion - that cumulateive exposure to low level
Â*radiation is linearly associated with the risk of getting cancer.,
Both propositions are wrong.

It seems that what counts is peak short term exposure, and its highly
non linear.


I'll give you a more succinct summary, suggesting that you're mistaken:

Conclusions: Collectively, though not separately, these studies show
appreciable hazards from residential radon, particularly for smokers and
recent ex-smokers, and indicate that it is responsible for about 2% of
all deaths from cancer in Europe.


Radon in homes and risk of lung cancer: collaborative analysis of
individual data from 13 European case-control studies
S Darby,

snip

And as I've said up-thread Allison disputes Darby's interpretation of
his [Darby's] results:

snip

"However, the effect of radon for non-smokers is
small €“ the risk of 0.1% or so should not be considered a serious
concern, in the sense discussed on page 7"

and

"At a practical level it is plain that, in the absence of smoking, the
health risk from radon is so small that it cannot be demonstrated,
even in a thorough Europe-wide study

'Radiation and Reason', Wade Allison, pp 126-127,
http://www.radiationandreason.com/download/ipmfss


Mmmm - good points, thanks. He seems to agree that smoking and radon is
not a good combination.

I'd just note that your source is a book - albeit by somebody who seems
to have a lot of qualifications. It's not peer reviewed.

In the past 2 years, from the top (searched by relevance, 'radon cancer'):

--
High Radon Areas and lung cancer prevalence: Evidence from Ireland
(2018) - 'Those in areas with a higher radon risk more likely to report
a lung cancer diagnosis'

Residential radon and cancer mortality in Galicia, Spain (2018) - 'The
results showed a statistical association between indoor radon and lung,
stomach and brain cancer in women in Galicia'

Indoor Radon and Lung Cancer: Estimation of Attributable Risk, Disease
Burden, and Effects of Mitigation (2018) - 'These [Korean] findings
suggest that indoor radon exposure contributes considerably to lung
cancer, and that reducing indoor radon concentration would be helpful
for decreasing the disease burden from lung cancer deaths.'
--

Obviously I'm not going to go through them all, but from a scan, these
empirical, primary, studies all seem to indicate a link. The papers also
occasionally have follow ups - the Ireland study, for example - doubts
were raised (and answered) about the statistics.

The only paper of this kind that I've found that supports the 'no
cancer' thesis is by Mortazavi (2005) - 'It can be concluded that lung
cancer rate may show a negative correlation with natural radon
concentration.' That author and others seem to quite routinely criticise
the LNT model's use, and the maths of other research.

I do of course accept there's some doubt, but not enough for me to
change my mind just yet.




--
Cheers, Rob