residential radon and lung cancer - mclaughlin centre · 2007-12-12 · 218po and 214po deliver...
Post on 29-Jul-2020
0 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Residential Radon and Lung Cancer
radon decay particles are inhaled into the lungs
energy released from radon decay products damages DNA
Residential Radon and Lung Cancer
218Po and 214Po deliver radiologically significant dose to the respiratory epithelium.
LeadLead--210210
PoloniumPolonium--214214
BismuthBismuth--214214
LeadLead--214214
PoloniumPolonium--218218
RadonRadon--222222
β,γβ,γ
α,γα,γ
α,γα,γ
α,γα,γ
β,γβ,γ
LeadLead--206206
PoloniumPolonium--210210
BismuthBismuth--210210β,γβ,γ
α,γα,γ
β,γβ,γ22 yrs22 yrs
4 day
3 min
27 min
20 min
0.2 ms
5 day
138 day
Stable
Long residency in glass
Decay easy to measure
Winnipeg Radon Case-control Study
• 1980: Cross-Canada radon survey of 18,000 homes(average of 150 Bq/m3 in Winnipeg)
• 1982: First planning meeting for Winnipeg case-control study (large scale, complete dosimetry)
• 1984: Case recruitment initiated• 1992: Field work completed
(750 case-control pairs, 35,000+ dosimeters)• 1993: Data analysis completed, manuscript written• 1994: Publication in American Journal of Epidemiology
(Letourneau, Krewski, Zielinski et al., 140, pp. 310-322)Overall odds ratio = 0.97 (0.81, 1.15) at 5,0000 Bq/m3-years
BEIR VI: Health Risks of Radon
• 1994: Committee convened
• 1999: Report released
“Radon responsible for 10-15 % of all lung cancer deaths in the United States”
New Jersey (NY) 480 442
Winnipeg (Winn) 738 738
Missouri-I (MO-I) 618 1,402
Missouri-II (MO-II) 697 700
Iowa (IA) 413 614
Connecticut (CT) 963 949
Utah-South Idaho (UT) 511 862
Subtotal 4,420 5,707
Total 10,127
Study Available
Case Control
North American Case-control Studies
Radon Concentration (Bq/m3)
Distribution of Radon Levels
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Iowa
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Connecticut
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Utah-Idaho
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Missouri-I
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Missouri-II
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
New Jersey
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Winnipeg
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Combined
Perc
enta
ge
<25 25-49 50-74 75-99 100-149 150-199 ≥ 2001 0.82 1.10 0.65 0.27 -0.11
(0.5,1.5) (0.3,3.5) (0.1,7.9) (0.1,1.8) (-0.41,1.34)1.03 1.78 0.77 1.9 1.13 0.076
(0.3,3.3) (0.6,5.3) (03,2.1) (0.5,6.6) (0.4,3.2) (-0.04,0.69)1 1.00 1 0.99 1.35 0.069
(0.6,17) (0.6,1.7) (0.5,1.9) (0.7,2.5) (- -,0.66)1 0.44 1.02 0.71 0.57 0.069
(0.5,1.5) (0.5,1.8) (0.4,2.3) (0.4,2.2) (-0.34,1.56)2.1 1.68 2.02 2.43 1.90 0.327
(1.1,4.1) (08,3.4) (1.0,3.9) (1.2,4.9) (1.0,3.7) (-0.01,1.37)1 1.15 1.27 0.78 0.215
(0.7,1.8) (0.7,2.4) (0.3,1.9) (-0.21,0.51)1 1 1.58 1.62 0.568
(0.5,1.8) (0.8,3.2) (0.7,3.7) (-0.08,2.68)1 1.01 1.29 1.22 1.28 1.41 1.37 0.176
(0.8,1.3) (1.0,1.7) (0.9,1.7) (0.9,1.8) (0.9,2.1) (0.9,2.1) (0.02,0.43)
CT
UT-ID
Winn
Total
MO-I
MO-II
(0.7,3.1)
NJ
1
Radon Concentration (Bq/m3)
1.44
IA
--
1.37(0.5,1.7)
1
ß×100Study
Odds Ratio (95% CI) for Lung Cancers: Restricted Data
0 100 200 300 4000
1
2
3NJWinnMO-IMO-IIIACTUT-IDPooled
Radon Concentration (Bq/m3)
Odd
s R
atio
Odds Ratio for Restricted DataOR (x) = 1 + 0.00176x
Radon Handbook for Canada
Institute of Population HealthR. Samuel McLaughlin Centre for
Population Health Risk Assessment
PAHO/WHO Collaborating Centre in Population Health Risk Assessment
Table of Contents
• Radon Gas• Radon Gas Health Effects• Measurement of Radon Gas in the Home• Radon and Water• Measurement Techniques for Radon Gas in the Home
– A) Pathways for Radon Entry into Homes– B) Reducing Radon Levels in Existing Homes– C) Precautionary Measures for New Homes
• New Canadian Residential Radon Guideline• Frequently Asked questions about Radon Gas• Further Information on Radon
WHO Radiation and Environmental Health Programme Overview
Scope: Establish a global project, with all key international anScope: Establish a global project, with all key international and national d national partners participating, to identify and promote programs that repartners participating, to identify and promote programs that reduce the duce the health impact of exposure to residential radonhealth impact of exposure to residential radon
Objectives:Objectives:Estimate the global health impact of exposure to residential radEstimate the global health impact of exposure to residential radononCreate a global database of residential radon exposureCreate a global database of residential radon exposureIdentify effective measures to reduce radon's health impactIdentify effective measures to reduce radon's health impactPromote sound policy options and mitigation programs to Member SPromote sound policy options and mitigation programs to Member StatestatesRaise public and political awareness about the consequences of eRaise public and political awareness about the consequences of exposure to xposure to radonradonMonitor and periodically review mitigation measures to ensure efMonitor and periodically review mitigation measures to ensure effectivenessfectivenessProvide annual reportsProvide annual reports
International Radon ProjectInternational Radon Project
U.S. National Academy of Sciences Research Priorities for Airborne Particulate Matter (1998 - 2010)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010
Year
$ M
illio
ns
McLaughlin Centre for Population Health Risk Assessment
#Y
#Y
#Y
#Y
#Y
#Y
#Y
#Y
#Y#Y
#Y
#Y
#Y#Y
#Y
#Y
#Y#Y
#Y
#Y
#Y#Y
#Y
#Y
#Y
#Y
#Y
#Y
#Y
#Y
#Y
#Y
#Y
#Y
#Y
#Y
#Y#Y
#Y#Y
#Y
#Y
#Y
#Y #Y
#Y
#Y#Y#Y
#Y
#Y
#Y
#Y#Y
#Y#Y
#Y
#Y
#Y
#Y
#Y #Y
#Y
#Y
#Y
#Y#Y
#Y
#Y #Y
#Y
#Y
#Y#Y
#Y
#Y#Y#Y
#Y
#Y
#Y
#Y
#Y
#Y#Y
#Y#Y
#Y
#Y #Y#Y
#Y#Y
#Y
#Y
#Y#Y
#Y
#Y #Y
#Y #Y
#Y
#Y
#Y#Y
#Y
#Y#Y#Y #Y
#Y
#Y
#Y
#Y#Y
#Y
#Y
#Y
#Y
#Y#Y#Y
#Y
#Y
#Y
#Y
#Y
#Y
#Y#Y
#Y
#Y
#Y
#Y
#Y
#Y
#Y
#Y#Y
#Y
#Y
#Y#Y
#Y
#Y#Y #Y
#Y
#Y#Y
Salt Lake City
New York
Boston
Seattle
San Francisco
Los Angeles
Dallas
Denver
Minneapolis
MemphisAtlanta
#
Washington
Gary
Nashville
New Orleans
Tampa
Detroit
Phoenix
Houston
Kansas City
Billings
Oklahoma City
#
Charleston
#
Johnstown
#
Steubenville
Sulfate ( ) [ ] < 4.00 4.00 - 4.99 5.00 - 5.99 6.00 - 6.99 7.00 - 7.99 8.00 - 8.99 9.00 - 9.99 10.00 - 10.99 11.00 - 11.99 12.00 - 12.99 13.00 - 13.99 14.00 - 14.99 15.00 - 15.99 16.00 - 16.99 17.00 - 17.99 18.00 - 18.99 19.00 - 19.99 20.00 - 20.99 21.00 - 21.99 22.00 - 22.99 > 23.00
#Y Sulfate Cohort Loc'ns (151)
500 0 500 1000 Miles
500 0 500 1000 1500 Kilometers
SO4 ugm-3
Modeled (Kriged) Sulfate (SO4) Surface
N =151
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
4.0 5.5 7.0 8.5 10.0 11.5 13.0 14.5 16.0 17.5 19.0 20.5 22.0 23.5 25.0
SO4 [ugm-3]
N
X
#Y
#Y
#Y
#Y
#Y
#Y
#Y#Y
#Y
#Y
#Y
#Y
#Y
#Y
#Y
#Y
#Y
#Y
#Y
#Y
#Y
#Y
#Y
#Y
#Y
#Y
#Y
#Y
#Y
#Y
#Y
#Y
#Y
#Y
#Y#Y
#Y
#Y
#Y
#Y
#Y
#Y
#Y
#Y
#Y
#Y#Y
#Y
#Y
#Y
GaryReno
Tampa
Omaha
Mobile
Fresno
DenverTopeka
Dayton
Dallas
PhoenixAtlanta
Wichita
Jackson
Raleigh
Buffalo
Houston
Norfolk
Seattle Spokane
Chicago
El Paso
Hartford
Portland
Charlotte
Cleveland
Nashville
Birmingham
Washington
Youngstown
Charleston
Boise City
Little RockLos Angeles
Minneapolis
Albuquerque
Indianapolis
Oklahoma City
Salt Lake City
San Francisco
PhiladelphiaSteubenville
#
Huntington
500 0 500 1000 1500 Kilometers
500 0 500 1000 Miles
Fine Particulate [ ] < 9.00 9.00 - 9.99 10.00 - 10.99 11.00 - 11.99 12.00 - 12.99 13.00 - 13.99 14.00 - 14.99 15.00 - 15.99 16.00 - 16.99 17.00 - 17.99 18.00 - 18.99 19.00 - 19.99 20.00 - 20.99 21.00 - 21.99 22.00 - 22.99 23.00 - 23.99 24.00 - 24.99 25.00 - 25.99 26.00 - 26.99 27.00 - 27.99 28.00 - 28.99 29.00 - 29.99 30.00 - 30.99 31.00 - 31.99 32.00 - 32.99 > 33.00
#Y Fine Particulate Cohort ugm-3
Modeled (Kriged) Fine Particulate Surface
0
5
10
15
20
8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0 20.0 22.0 24.0 26.0 28.0 30.0 32.0 34.0 36.0
Fine Particulate [ugm-3]
N
X
N =50
#Y
#Y
#Y
#Y
#Y
#Y
#Y
#Y
#Y#Y
#Y
#Y
#Y#Y
#Y
#Y
#Y#Y
#Y
#Y
#Y#Y
#Y
#Y
#Y
#Y
#Y
#Y
#Y
#Y
#Y
#Y
#Y
#Y
#Y
#Y
#Y#Y
#Y#Y
#Y
#Y
#Y
#Y#Y
#Y
#Y#Y#Y
#Y
#Y
#Y
#Y#Y
#Y#Y
#Y
#Y
#Y
#Y
#Y #Y
#Y
#Y
#Y
#Y#Y
#Y
#Y #Y
#Y
#Y
#Y
#Y#Y
#Y#Y#Y
#Y
#Y
#Y
#Y
#Y
#Y#Y
#Y#Y
#Y
#Y #Y#Y
#Y#Y
#Y
#Y
#Y#Y
#Y
#Y #Y
#Y #Y
#Y
#Y
#Y#Y
#Y
#Y#Y
#Y #Y#Y
#Y
#Y
#Y#Y
#Y
#Y
#Y
#Y
#Y#Y#Y
#Y
#Y
#Y
#Y
#Y
#Y
#Y#Y
#Y
#Y
#Y
#Y
#Y
#Y
#Y
#Y#Y
#Y
#Y
#Y#Y
#Y
#Y#Y #Y
#Y
#Y#Y
Salt Lake City
New York
Boston
Seattle
San Francisco
Los Angeles
Dallas
Denver
Minneapolis
MemphisAtlanta
#
Washington
Gary
Nashville
New Orleans
Tampa
Detroit
Phoenix
Houston
Kansas City
#
Steubenville
Billings
Oklahoma City
#
Charleston
#
Johnstown
Low Sulfate Air Pollution High Mortality Medium Mortality Low Mortality
Medium Sulfate Air Pollution High Mortality Medium Mortality Low Mortality
High Sulfate Air Pollution High Mortality Medium Mortality
#Y Sulfate Cohort Loc'ns (151)
500 0 500 1000 Miles
500 0 500 1000 1500 Kilometers
Sulfate (SO4) Air Pollution Levelsand
Mortality Rates (All Cause)
Note: Low Mortality rate is not present in areas with High Sulfate Air Pollution
Particulate Matter and Mortalityin U.S. Cities
Cause of Death RR PM2.5 RR SO4
All-cause 1.17 (1.09, 1.26) 1.15 (1.09, 1.22)Cardiopulmonary 1.31 (1.17, 1.46) 1.26 (1.16, 1.37)Lung cancer 1.03 (0.80, 1.33) 1.36 (1.17, 1.66)
http://www.healtheffects.org
McLaughlin Centre for Population Health Risk Assessment
• Utilization of recent advances in statistical modeling, including the incorporation of random effects and non-parametric spatial smoothing components to the Cox Proportional Hazard model.
-120 -110 -100 -90-80 -70
longitude30
35
40
45
latitude
-0.2-0
.15-0
.1-0.0
5 00.
050.10
.15
lo(lo
ngitu
de, l
atitu
de, s
pan
= 0.
2)
-120 -110 -100 -90-80 -70
longitude30
35
40
45
latitude
-4-2
02
4lo
(long
itude
, lat
itude
, spa
n =
0.2)
a) Spatial representation of prevalence of heartdisease adjusted for individual-level risk factors
b) Spatial representation of particulatesulfate levels
See: Burnett, Ma, Jerrett, Goldberg Cakmak, Pope, and Krewski. “The Spatial Association Between Community Air Pollution and Mortality: A New Method of Analyzing Correlated Geographic Cohort Data.”Environ Health Prespect 109(suppl):375-380(2001).
McLaughlin Centre for Population Health Risk Assessment
Mortality Risk Ratios (and 95% CIs) [for each 10 µg/m3 increase in fine particles]
1.005(0.952-1.061)
Other
1.135(1.044-1.234)
Lung Cancer
1.093(1.033-1.158)
Cardiopulmonary
1.062(1.016-1.110)
All Cause
PM2.5 (ave)(10 µg/m3)Cause of Death
Source: A. Pope, R. T. Burnett, M. J. Thun, E. E. Calle, D. Krewski, K. Ito, and G. D. Thurston. Lung cancer, cardiopulmonary mortality and long-term exposure to fine particulate air pollution. Journal of the American Medical Association 287:1132-1141, 2002.
Spatial Analysis of Air Pollution and Spatial Analysis of Air Pollution and Mortality in Los Angeles Mortality in Los Angeles
Modeled PM2.5 Concentration Levels throughout the Los Angeles Region
Standard Errors in Original Units
Results
• Pollution effects significant and large RR ~ 1.17 over 10 ug/m3 contrast for all cause mortality (3 times as large as the inter-urban effect reported by Pope et al. 2002)
• Lung cancer and heart disease RR range from 1.25-1.60
NERAM Colloquia on Health and Air Quality:Interpreting Science for Decision Makers
InterpretationScientificData
Social Issues Economic Issues
Political IssuesTechnological Issues
SciencePolicy
Network for Environmental Risk Assessment & Management
NERAM Air Quality Risk Management:Colloquium Schedule
McLaughlin Centre for Population Health Risk Assessment
2001 University of OttawaOttawa, Canada
2002 Johns Hopkins UniversityBaltimore, USA
2003 Santo Spirito HospitalRome, Italy
2005 National Institute for Public HealthCuernavaca, Mexico
2006 Simon Fraser UniversityVancouver, Canada
Current State of Science
McLaughlin Centre for Population Health Risk Assessment
1. A diverse and growing range of scientific evidence demonstrates significant effects of air pollution on human health and the environment, thereby justifying continued local and global efforts to reduce exposures.
Communication of Science of Policy Decisions
McLaughlin Centre for Population Health Risk Assessment
3. A clearer articulation of the physical and policy linkages between air quality and climate change is needed to inform public opinion and influence policymakers. Care must be taken not to compromise air quality through actions to mitigate climate change. Similarly, air quality solutions must be reviewed in terms of impacts on climate.
Policy Approaches for Air Quality Management
McLaughlin Centre for Population Health Risk Assessment
4. Improving air quality is best approached at a systems level with multiple points of intervention. Policy solutions at the local, regional and international scale through cross-sectoral policies in energy, environment, climate, transport, agriculture and health will be more effective than individual single-sector policies.
Science and Policy Assessment Needs
McLaughlin Centre for Population Health Risk Assessment
13.The effectiveness of local, regional and global policy measures must be scientifically evaluated to confirm that the expected benefits of interventions on air quality, human health and the environment are achieved and if not, that alternate measures are implemented quickly.
For more information
Visit us at:www.mclaughlincentre.ca
McLaughlin Centre for Population Health Risk Assessment
Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs)
Arctic Circle
Canada
USARussia
Greenland
Ocean currentsAir trajectoriesRiverine inputs
Norway
55°N
What are POPs?• Long-lived (persistent) organic chemicals (not
metals)• Fat soluble substances that bioaccumulate and
bioconcentrate• Semi-volatile substances that can travel long
distances• Toxic substances that have a variety of
significant health effects
• Old pesticides (DDT, Aldrin, Mirex, Chlordane, Toxaphene)
• Commercial chemicals (HCB, PCBs) • ndustrial by-products (dioxins, furans, PAHs)
Arctic Science: 15 years of research
• Air/Soil/Ice Scientists: identified several POPs and metals in Arctic air and ice/sediment cores
• Wildlife Researchers: quantified presence of multiple contaminants in birds, fish and sea mammals
• Epidemiologists: confirmed and characterized more than 15 POPs and metals in Arctic residents, some at very high concentrations
THE GRASSHOPPEREFFECT ......
POPs move thousands of kilometers in the upper atmosphere
CACAR, 1997
CACAR, 1997
POPs and organo-metals biomagnify in the long Arctic food chain because they
are persistent and lipophilic.
Phytoplankton(algae)
Zooplankton Small fish
Predatory fish
Less methylmercury More methylmercury
In the Arctic ecosystem…biomagnification from water to seals, polar bears, and Inuit mothers is > 10,000,000
Regional mercury survey in 8 Arctic countriesMaternal blood values in ppb (AMAP, 2003)
top related