Radon and Skin Cancer

Hi All

I found this quite interesting.




Researchers from the European Centre for Environment & Human Health (part of the Peninsula College of Medicine & Dentistry) have detected a connection following analysis of data on radon exposure and skin cancer cases from across southwest England. The study, which looked at small geographical areas across Devon and Cornwall, builds upon a similar study conducted 15 years ago.

Radon is a naturally occurring, radioactive gas found in soil and bedrock common in parts of the southwest. It has been recognised as a minor contributor to cases of lung cancer, but so far there has been no firm evidence to suggest it has wider health implications. Whilst both radon levels and skin cancer incidence in the southwest are amongst the highest in the UK, the study found no association between household radon levels and malignant melanoma, or the most common form of skin cancer basal cell carcinoma. However, a link was found between areas where high radon concentrations are found and a particular type of non-melanoma skin cancer called squamous cell carcinoma.

The analysis took account of the way population characteristics, exposure to sunshine and proximity to the coast vary across the region. However, the researchers highlighted people’s exposure to ultraviolet (UV) radiation from the sun as a particularly difficult factor to account for, especially as this represents an important risk factor for developing skin cancer.

Despite the limitations of the study, researchers feel it is an important area needing further investigation. Lead author of the study, Dr Ben Wheeler said “We know that naturally occurring radon is a contributing factor to a small proportion of lung cancers, but there is limited evidence of other health implications. These findings suggest that the issue of radon and skin cancer deserves a much closer look and we’re planning to develop a more detailed study capable of detecting a direct relationship, if one actually exists”.

  1. #1 by hein vandenbergh on November 17, 2011 - 4:15 am

    Makes sense – two mild [in UK anyway] carcinogens, exposure to both, and effect usually multiplies [non-additive but a multiplier]. I think sometimes these studies prove the outcome which logic tells you should be the outcome. Still, it gets names into print, and adds to the stuff we ‘need’ to read.

    It would be interesting to see HOW the risk increases, by mathematical modelling, taking the known isolated risks for each one and doing the right maths on it. But – as conceded – the ‘actual’ risk of UV exposure is hard to know as exposure-levels are hard to measure.

    Were it not for the fact that I am an animal liberationist to the point of now being vegetarian [mainly because of the immense cruelties inflicted in factory farming], one could expose susceptible rats or beagles or whatever to known and accurately measurable doses of either – in isolation – calculate the risk for each, and then do the maths/stats. Likely to read across to hooman beans fairly accurately, at least in terms of being a multiplier or a ‘mere’ additional increase in risk.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: