{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.023540489642184557, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0023540489642184556, 'mean_word_length': 4.727762803234501, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The paternal link with childhood leukaemia

Both Ms Comben and Mr Dunster cite the argument that the existence of the variation in natural background (excluding radon) is well known, and that since people don’t worry about the associated risk when moving house they (the people) judge this risk to be ‘acceptable’. Outside our profession, I think that very few people would know the change in natural background they would experience in moving from area A to B, let alone the consequent change in risk. Since they do not know what the change in risk is, how can they be said to judge it ‘acceptable’? There are, of course, regional differences in many things besides natural background. For some diseases, there are significant and persistent differences in mortality rates which are much greater than any differences that might arise from variations in natural (non-radon) background. So far as I know, people don’t worry about these regional differences in mortality rates when they move house, so it could be argued that society judges these differences in risk to be ‘acceptable’. However, there is the same objection to this argument as before-most people do not know what the differences are. I cannot understand Mr Dunster’s reason for excluding radon from the argument. The response of national authorities to the problem of domestic exposure to radon has been to recommend an Action Level; that recommended by the NRPB corresponds to an effective dose equivalent of 10 mSv y I . Radon doses below the Action Level are part of the uncontrolled natural radiation background. If we believe in the concept of effective dose equivalent (or whatever it is eventually called) then we must include them with the other components of natural background. So the variation in this background is not 1 mSv but 10 mSv per year. It may be that there is sufficient public interest in domestic exposure to radon (in the affected areas) to obtain some useful information as to the public’s views on ’acceptability’. But I suspect that this is a naive hope, and that the profession will have to continue making the decisions by proxy.