Advertisement

Letter to the Editor: Comments on “Radon survey in the kindergartens of three Visegrad countries (Hungary, Poland and Slovakia)”

  • J. J. Bevelacqua
  • S. M. J. MortazaviEmail author
Article
  • 77 Downloads

We read with interest the paper “Radon survey in the kindergartens of three Visegrad countries (Hungary, Poland and Slovakia)” by Műllerová et al. [1]. The authors have measured radon concentration in 67 rooms in kindergartens in Visegrad countries and reported that in 7.5% of rooms the concentration of radon exceeded the reference level of 300 Bq m−3. The annual effective dose due to inhalation of this level of radon was 0.5–13.3 mSv for children and 0.3–8.3 mSv for staff. Műllerová et al. state that “Moreover, radiation protection is based on the premise of linear no-threshold model. It means that the prognosis of lung cancer caused by radiation exposure depends on the duration of exposure. Therefore children exposed to the same dose than adults are more susceptible to lung cancer”. These claims are based on the linear-non threshold (LNT) hypothesis that assumes any radiation dose leads to a biological detriment and the effect of these exposures is cumulative [2, 3]. Residential...

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

All the authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Műllerová M, Mazur J, Csordás A, Holý K, Grządziel D, Kovács T et al (2018) Radon survey in the kindergartens of three Visegrad countries (Hungary, Poland and Slovakia). J Radioanal Nucl Chem.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10967-018-6374-3 Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Siegel JA, Pennington CW, Sacks B (2017) Subjecting radiologic imaging to the linear no-threshold hypothesis: a non sequitur of non-trivial proportion. J Nucl Med 58(1):1–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Weber W, Zanzonico P (2017) The controversial linear no-threshold model. J Nucl Med 58(1):7–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sohrabi M (2013) World high background natural radiation areas: need to protect public from radiation exposure. Radiat Meas 50:166–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Mortazavi S, Ghiassi-Nejad M, Rezaiean M (eds) (2005) Cancer risk due to exposure to high levels of natural radon in the inhabitants of Ramsar, Iran. International congress series. Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cohen BL (1995) Test of the linear-no threshold theory of radiation carcinogenesis for inhaled radon decay products. Health Phys 68(2):157–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cohen BL (1997) Lung cancer rate vs. mean radon level in US counties of various characteristics. Health Phys 72(1):114–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sacks B, Meyerson G, Siegel JA (2016) Epidemiology without biology: false paradigms, unfounded assumptions, and specious statistics in radiation science (with commentaries by Inge Schmitz-Feuerhake and Christopher Busby and a reply by the authors). Biol Theory 11(2):69–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Siegel JA, Welsh JS (2016) Does imaging technology cause cancer? Debunking the linear no-threshold model of radiation carcinogenesis. Technol Cancer Res Treat 15(2):249–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dobrzyński L, Fornalski KW, Feinendegen LE (2015) Cancer mortality among people living in areas with various levels of natural background radiation. Dose Response 13(3):1559325815592391Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bevelacqua JJ (2018) Challenges to the Paper “Radiation dose does matter: mechanistic insights into DNA damage and repair support the linear no-threshold model of low-dose radiation health risks. J Nucl Med 59(11):1777–1778.  https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.118.217604 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Siegel JA, Pennington CW, Sacks B (2017) Subjecting radiologic imaging to the linear no-threshold hypothesis: a non sequitur of non-trivial proportion. J Nucl Med 58(1):1–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ozasa K, Shimizu Y, Suyama A, Kasagi F, Soda M, Grant EJ et al (2011) Studies of the mortality of atomic bomb survivors, report 14, 1950–2003: an overview of cancer and noncancer diseases. Radiat Res 177(3):229–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Preston DL, Shimizu Y, Pierce DA, Suyama A, Mabuchi K (2003) Studies of mortality of atomic bomb survivors. Report 13: Solid cancer and noncancer disease mortality: 1950–1997. Radiat Res 160(4):381–407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Council NR (2006) Health risks from exposure to low levels of ionizing radiation: BEIR VII phase 2. National Academies Press, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Bevelacqua ResourcesRichlandUSA
  2. 2.Diagnostic Imaging Department, Doss Lab (R-432)Fox Chase Cancer CenterPhiladelphiaUSA

Personalised recommendations