[troutman]

https://www.semanticscholar.org/pape...fa1eb36d448405

A re-analysis has been carried out of thirty-two case-control and two ecological studies concerning the influence of radon, a radioactive gas, on the risk of lung cancer. In all, as a result of our meta-analysis of the combined cohort, we conclude that the analysed data concerning radon concentrations below ~1000 Bq/m3 (~20 mSv/year of effective dose to the whole body) do not support the thesis that radon may be a cause of any statistically significant increase in lung cancer incidence. 2018

https://clinmedjournals.org/articles....php?jid=ijrit

The American Lung Association has recently led a national workgroup to develop The National Radon Action Plan: A Strategy for Saving Lives. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is the lead governmental organization projected to implement this plan. The stated intent of the plan is to address the "radon problem" in the United States, with the aim of saving 3,200 lives by the year 2020 through preventing at least a portion of the lung cancer mortality that is assumed to arise from inhaling modest doses of radon in homes, offices, and buildings. The plan identifies a number of actions that government can take in the spirit of saving lives by avoiding the inhalation of radon and its progeny. We are among a growing number of investigators who recognize the substantial body of evidence demonstrating that the radiation doses associated with indoor radon inhalation are not harmful. Radon, at these doses, is unlikely to be a cause of lung cancer, and, on the contrary, may be beneficial in various ways, including its paradoxical tendency to protect against lung cancer. In the present paper, we review and critique the past policies of the EPA with respect to indoor radon and the very impetus for the plan. We indicate that the plan should not be implemented because a preponderance of the evidence indicates an unintended consequence: implementation of the plan is likely to increase, rather than decrease, the risk of lung cancer. 2016

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3315166/

Residential radon has been found to be associated with lung cancer in epidemiological/ecological studies and the researchers have inappropriately concluded that residential radon causes lung cancer. Their conclusion relates to the linear-no-threshold (LNT) hypothesis-based, risk-assessment paradigm; however, the LNT hypothesis has been invalidated in numerous studies. It is shown in this paper that our hormetic relative risk (HRR) model is consistent with lung cancer data where detailed measurements of radon in each home were carried out. Based on the HRR model, low-level radon radioactive progeny is credited for activated natural protection (ANP) against lung cancer including smoking-related lung cancer. The proportion B(x) (benefit function) of ANP beneficiaries increases as the average radon level x increases to near the Environmental Protection Agency’s action level of 4 picocuries/L (approximately 150 Bq m−3). As the average level of radon increases to somewhat above the action level, ANP beneficiaries progressively decrease to zero (B(x) decreases to 0), facilitating the occurrence of smoking-related lung cancers as well as those related to other less important risk factors. Thus, residential radon does not appear to cause lung cancer but rather to protect, in an exposure-level-dependent manner, from its induction by other agents (e.g., cigarette-smoke-related carcinogens). 2011