Radon Myth & Truth

[Geico266]

There is no 'conclusion'. There are tantalizing bits of trivia that masquerade as theories, there are a lot of normalized, and statistics adjusted data points that can have an interpretation of lowered risk with no, or very, very low background exposure(0-4)picoCuries.

What can be said of this is that a non exposure to radon has no link to increased cancer risk. That's not surprising. A non-link to a double negative in a study where there was supposed to be exposure, and correlated increased risk is pretty thin to say anything about.

It does bring up some nice ideas for further study, but as for concluding that background ionizing radiation decreases the risk of cancer - sadly, no it does not say that, and the EPA for certain does not say that.

Based on such weak data and crazies studies ( 1940's Soviet forced labor mine workers) can the EPA come out with 4 PC/l as the standard? They reached this level as acceptable due to what is reachable under "economically feasible" conditions for the home owner, not what levels are dangerous. Just seems convoluted to me... like $tingar.

I'm confident it does say that....

In fact, even the EPA, buried deep within its risk estimates very clearly reports that it has no evidence that the risk increases, and that even their studies conclude that as radon concentrations in in homes go up, lung cancer rates go down.

Second paragraph...

http://www.forensic-applications.com/radon/reviews.html

 

[N801BH]

Please provide just ONE documented case of Radon causing cancer or any other health problem.

I am going to bring this up again......... Someone please show me even ONE documented case of Radon causing cancer..............

Thanks in advance..

Ben..

 

[steingar]

I am going to bring this up again......... Someone please show me even ONE documented case of Radon causing cancer..............

Thanks in advance..

Ben..

Your point is well taken, and I admittedly cannot answer your question. Like I said, this is well outside my area of expertise. I just thing one should think critically about one's sources, and not decide things based on some web site.

We know quite a bit about the effect of ionizing radiation on biological tissues, and have exposure limits for those who work with the stuff. I assume such thinking went into the regulations. That is, I admit, only an assumption.

 

[bnt83]

America the illiterate. America, where few believe in the science underlying technological progress. America, where scientists trying to make the world a better place are vilified as con artists. America, where the people place more belief in their in their local house of worship than their local university

All products of the impotent education system.

 

[steingar]

All products of the impotent education system.

Perhaps, but to see such utter ignorance again and again among the population that frequents this board (which one would think erudite given the resources necessary to participate in aviation) makes me very pessimistic for the future of this once great nation that I love.

 

[Palmpilot]

I am going to bring this up again......... Someone please show me even ONE documented case of Radon causing cancer..............

Thanks in advance..

Ben..

At the link that Geico posted, there is an extensive discussion of a study of people forced to work in uranium mines, which included the following conclusions:

Overall, this study, published in 2006, appears to have been carefully thought out, properly vetted and the authors used appropriate methodologies for the task at hand. The authors did an excellent job and the work carries considerable credibility and is a valuable reference.

The authors appear to have carefully reviewed their study plan prior to conducting the study, and placed considerable effort into attempting to identify gross potential confounders. The authors explain the identified confounders and how they dealt with those confounders. The authors also explain their concerns with several aspects of the “selectional bias” associated with their study. (Selectional bias is a standard epidemiological concept that is associated with virtually all such studies). Although the authors identified and discussed several biases associated with their study, we have only addressed the more pertinent ones here.

The conclusions by the authors appeared to be well supported by their observations, and well within the limits of their observations, errors, biases, and confounders as identified by the authors themselves and spelled out in the paper. Overall, the methods and practices employed by the authors were within acceptable scientific parameters and acceptable epidemiological practices.

The conclusions of the authors are consistent with known science, consistent with our own opinions at Forensic Applications, Inc. and consistent with what we have discussed in our lectures for many years...

The authors found an increased risk of lung cancer among uranium miners who worked underground in harsh conditions when exposures, as defined in their study, exceeded 800 WLMs. The finding is entirely consistent with what we have observed for years and argued in the past...

In short, the authors found that if you were a slave, forced to work in a Soviet underground uranium mine with no ventilation, you had an higher probability of contracting lung cancer. I don’t have a problem with that conclusion.

They go on to note that

Contrary to the argument that the study proves that residential radon causes cancer, the study in no way whatsoever addressed the general risks of lung cancer associated with exposure to radon at concentrations normally seen in houses.

They use that qualifier, "at concentrations normally seen in houses," many times in the article, which leaves open the possibility that there could be a problem at higher than normal concentrations. Of course, it seems reasonable to assume that the exposure in a uranium mine would be much higher than would be present in a home. Whether there is evidence sufficient to set a sensible limit, I don't know.

 

[weilke]

We know quite a bit about the effect of ionizing radiation on biological tissues, and have exposure limits for those who work with the stuff. I assume such thinking went into the regulations. That is, I admit, only an assumption.

For ionizing radiation in general, we know remarkably little about its effect at low dose rates. Most of the occupational limits are derived from extrapolation down from popluations exposed to high doses (e.g. the Hiroshima cohort). For plain 'external beam' radiation, we have sizeable cohorts of radiation workers that seem to show no adverse effect at low exposures (which matches the natural experience, background radiation varies between different locales within the US yet we dont see an epidemic of cancer in Colorado).

The action level for radon in a residential setting is also based on extrapolation from populations exposed to higher radon doses (as well as mixed exposures to radon and uranium dust). The detractors like to draw an artificial line between their biology and that of someone who worked in a mine in the 50s, I guess they are somehow differen.....
In the meantime however, there are a large number of case-control studies that looked at radon doses in the homes of lung-cancer patients and compared them with matched controls. The odds-ratios for radon alone is somewhere around 1.2 for exposures at the current 'action level' and goes up to 1.6 for exposures at twice that level (which are not uncommon in certain geologies). Once you throw in smoking, the odds ratios get pretty wild, somewhere in the 20-30s between smokers without radon exposures and smokers with radon exposure). So, as I said earlier, for a non-smoker, the increase in risk is modest and given that lung cancer is far down on the list of things that happen to a non-smoker (relative to heart disease, stroke, diabetes etc.), probably not worth worrying about. But if I have the choice of breathing a air with an alpha-emitter and without, I'll go for without.

I am in the process of designing a house. If you put the ducting and sheating to protect against radon in during construction, the cost is next to nothing. If after completion, a radon test shows something worrysome, you just hook up the fan stop and stop worrying about it. If it doesn't show anything worrysome, you hook up the fan anyway and enjoy the bone-dry basement.....

 

[Palmpilot]

Are there fans available for ventilating crawl spaces? Independent of the radon issue, my crawl space doesn't smell very good, and I've been wondering if a fan would help.

 

[Henning]

Are there fans available for ventilating crawl spaces? Independent of the radon issue, my crawl space doesn't smell very good, and I've been wondering if a fan would help.

Yes, crawl space fans are available for just such use. Those funky smells are caused by molds, bacteria and fungi for the most part, best to keep the air moving generally.

 

[Ghery]

Reminds me of the 60hz - leukemia scare in the 80's. I rented a gaussmeter and surveyed my daughter's bedroom. Found the house 240 volt service was coming in under her bed and moved it 10 feet away. I don't have a clue as to whether the issues were legitimate or not, it was easier to fix the alleged problem than to find the truth.

Some years ago the author of the ONE study that perported to show a link between EMF (electromagnetic fields, in this case 60 Hz) and cancer admitted that the data was faked. To date there are NO studies that back up the scare from the 80s and early 90s.

I live and grew up in Southeast Washingon State, near the Hanford nuclear reservation. We are awash with nuclear scientists out here, and I worked in the industry for years. I once attended a lecture about medical radiation exposure. Medical radiation exposure is a problem. Unless you keep a record of your own, there is probably no record, and your cumulative dose can become quite high over a lifetime.

The key difference, as we were told when I worked nuke at Mare Island Naval Shipyard in the mid-1970s, is that our exposure at the yard was whole body exposure and medical X-rays are localized. In other words, the risk from the medical procedures is contained to the area exposed. And, no, I don't have a record of my medical X-rays over the years. The good thing is that my dentist has moved to a solid-state sensor system in place of film and the dosage needed for an image has dropped substantially.

As noted by others, radiation exposure is cumulative and there is no "safe" level. We don't know where the tipping point is and my guess is that it is different for each person. This is a case where less is better. I remember the photographs outsite the radiology department at the veterinary school at WSU showing the hands and arms of radiation workers who hadn't taken precautions. I don't know if they are still up, but they were back in the 60s and 70s when I was in and out of the place (Dad was on the faculty) and they got your attention.

Is inhaling Radon dangerous? I don't know, but it can't be good if you inhale enough over a long enough period.

 

[Palmpilot]

Yes, crawl space fans are available for just such use. Those funky smells are caused by molds, bacteria and fungi for the most part, best to keep the air moving generally.

I think rodent droppings are involved too.

 

[Geico266]

All products of the impotent education system.

You do realize $tingar IS A teacher?

 

[Geico266]

At the link that Geico posted, there is an extensive discussion of a study of people forced to work in uranium mines, which included the following conclusions:



They go on to note that



They use that qualifier, "at concentrations normally seen in houses," many times in the article, which leaves open the possibility that there could be a problem at higher than normal concentrations. Of course, it seems reasonable to assume that the exposure in a uranium mine would be much higher than would be present in a home. Whether there is evidence sufficient to set a sensible limit, I don't know.

AND! When you read the study moderate levels of radon show a DECREASE / LOWER rate of lung cancer.

 

[Geico266]

Your point is well taken, and I admittedly cannot answer your question. Like I said, this is well outside my area of expertise. I just thing one should think critically about one's sources, and not decide things based on some web site.

We know quite a bit about the effect of ionizing radiation on biological tissues, and have exposure limits for those who work with the stuff. I assume such thinking went into the regulations. That is, I admit, only an assumption.

And when I show you a study of the EPA's faulty conclusions based on studies of uranium miners in forced labor camp you shoot the messenger? The EPA's own criteria for setting the minimum level at 4 Pc/L because that is "economically attainable".

"Those who can produce in our society do, those who can't teach."

 

[Geico266]

Are there fans available for ventilating crawl spaces? Independent of the radon issue, my crawl space doesn't smell very good, and I've been wondering if a fan would help.

Look into "encapsulation". I hired a company to encapsulate our old house's crawl space. Literally seals the crawl space from the living space. Funky smells, humidity, bugs, drafts, is a thing of the past. Well worth the money, and greatly increased resale, and saved on utility bills.

Here is a video of the process....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sAz2sdKrWcs

 

[weilke]

Look into "encapsulation". I hired a company to encapsulate our old house's crawl space. Literally seals the crawl space from the living space. Funky smells, humidity, bugs, drafts, is a thing of the past. Well worth the money, and greatly increased resale, and saved on utility bills.

But it'll deprive you of all the beneficial effect of that radon diffusing into your house .

Do you have an ozone dispenser as well ?

 

[Geico266]

But it'll deprive you of all the beneficial effect of that radon diffusing into your house .

Do you have an ozone dispenser as well ?

Please! I'm busy huffing radon!

Actually, and seriously, I do have Ozone machines....I use them in rental property! Seriously!

 

[Becky]

Temporary hijack ... just curious ... does anyone know whether radio waves from airport radar have health effects? We live very near the airport and I can see the radar unit from my house. It's less than a mile away. I know that sometimes airport radar picks up vehicles traveling on the ground, so I am wondering if my house is getting radar-ed? I suppose the waves would bounce off, though? My hope is that studies will show a distinct benefit to living near airports.

 

[weilke]

Temporary hijack ... just curious ... does anyone know whether radio waves from airport radar have health effects?

IF the antenna stopped AND you stood right in front of it, yes it would have an effect on your health in the sense that you may be dead Close-up, the microwave energy from the primary radar is dangerous and steps are taken to keep people from walking into the beam (e.g. By putting the thing on a tower and safety lockouts that cut off the beam if the antenna is stopped for maintenance). There have been documented eFfects on the health of navy radar technicians from back before we knew those things.

A mile away, the absorbed energy from ATC radar is negligible. The published data for an ASR-11 (the current model you would find at a terminal radar facility) will not exceed allowable exposure levels once you are more than 43ft from the antenna. The older ASR-9 terminal radars and the en-route radars put out a lot more power, dont know what the safe distance is for those.

 

[N801BH]

Ok..... I need to vent..

First. Since I cannot figure out how to multiple post I will attempt to cut and paste different comments from some other posts into my post....

Weilke wrote:... The action level for radon in a residential setting is also based on extrapolation from populations exposed to higher radon doses (as well as mixed exposures to radon and uranium dust).

Extrapolation has caused false conclusions over the years and in my opinion should be not used to gather honest answers.. Back in the 60's, I remember a big scare some scientists spouted about Cyclomates in soft drinks and there terrible side effects... Turns out the amount they used to arrive at their conclusion was proved the person drinking enough to have any harmful ill effects would have had to drink some much soft drinks they literally would have DROWNED in the product first..


Richard Palm wrote:...
Are there fans available for ventilating crawl spaces? Independent of the radon issue, my crawl space doesn't smell very good, and I've been wondering if a fan would help.
__________________
KPAO (San Francisco area)

Since Radon is heavier then air it has been proven that ventilating basements and crawl spaces actually caused elevated levels of Radon since it is drawn out of the soil by the negative pressure the fans create in such spaces.... Let the weight of the atmosphere keep it pushed into the ground...

Ghery Pettit wrote:... As noted by others, radiation exposure is cumulative and there is no "safe" level. We don't know where the tipping point is and my guess is that it is different for each person.

The level of radiation is elevated the higher you fly... Jet pilots and passengers are exposed to much greater levels of radiation then someone living in a log cabin with a dirt floor.

Geico wrote:... Look into "encapsulation". I hired a company to encapsulate our old house's crawl space. Literally seals the crawl space from the living space. Funky smells, humidity, bugs, drafts, is a thing of the past. Well worth the money, and greatly increased resale, and saved on utility bills.

As a contractor living in one of the areas in the country that is surrounded by Granite, as witnessed by Dr B, Ted, Henning and others, I can tell you the local building officials tried to outsmart mother nature and it bit them in the a$$ and cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to homeowners till they realized their ( concept) was seriously flawed...

Here's how it played out..... The building officials went to a seminar somewhere and were fed the Radon koolaid... And they drank gallons of it.. So they come back and enact some very stringent "anti Radon measures".. This consisted of excavating the area inside the footers and at the inside perimeter they required 4" perf pipe bedded in 1" washed rock, that was topped by 4 more inches of washed rock and then capped with 4 mil Visqueen. On papar is seems to make sense... till reality set in..

Seems during the construction process the plumbers , electricians and other tradesmen would crawl around in the crawl space,, hence the name.... That would cause rips and holes in the Visqueen.. Well, that was covering up the 5 inches of washed rock they required to be placed there... And what is washed rock ??

There is only two providers of that product and both companies mine that rock from the bottom of the Snake river that runs through the valley. And where did all that rock come from in the first place. ? The Teton mountian range, that over time has dumped millions of tons of Granite into the river.... So now we had a perfectly safe and low Radon building site contaminated by trucked in rock emitting Radon. OOPS...

After they started testing houses on either side of the new construction and found those old houses had Radon levels in the .2-.5 range and the NEW construction tested 10 to 15 times that they finally put 2 and 2 together and concluded the source of the Radon was coming from the layer of washed rock the building officials requires us to put in.... Soooooooo... To fix that #uckup, they then suggested the homeowner pour 2" of concrete over the washed rock since the Visqueen was breached and leaking Radon... Not an easy task when you have to pump it through 6" tall foundation vent holes.....

Problem cured??? ..

What is concrete made of ...... Cement and aggregate.. And what is aggregate.. WASHED AND CRUSHED ROCK from the Snake river... Well, that made the radon levels even higher...

So they then "suggested" the homeowner cover the top surface of that 2" of concrete with an Epoxy paint.. Now keep in mind this all happened BEFORE water based Epoxy Paints were readily available.. So now the house was filled with the VOC's of the Epoxy and those houses were almost condemned under the "sick house" syndrome.......

And most of the general contractors here just shook our heads in disbelief during this whole dog and pony show...

If you look up the defination of "unintened consequences"... there is a COLOR picture of Teton County Radon mitigation requirements..


Vent off....

 

[comanchepilot]

Wow, what an example of the science illiteracy mentioned a few posts up.

You're arguing against a massive straw man. Mistake #1 is assuming that weather = climate. Mistake #2 is assuming that Al Gore or any other mass-media disseminator represents the science. Mistake #3 is presuming that global and specific local temperatures correlate (and yes, the US -- even all of it -- is local). What happens from one year to the next says N O T H I N G about climate. Read that 50 times before you say this year in isolation proves or disproves anything about climate. No model -- let me repeat that -- NO MODEL -- says that a single colder year (or even a decade) is impossible or that there won't be places where warming doesn't occur. Nor did it ever.

You won't know what the global mean climate in 2015 was until at least a few decades later. Why? Because you're thinking that it's WEATHER. You're wrong, and you don't seem to care why. And you claim to know what it is before it even happens, let alone before one can average out the short term timescales. But I guess if you "know" the answer, there is no point in actually finding out what the data is, now is there?

#4 - it was hyperbole. I'm all for REAL data - not data that has been 'massaged' or 'accurized' such that it only reveals one trend.

You do know that beginning in 1993 almost every Soviet weather station in the Arctic was closed, right? So - what did they do? Did they take them all out of the data set going back to 1946? No, of course not. They simply stopped using the cold temps - and as a result guess what happened to the average. You can easily use the 'if you know the answer why get the data' to the people who are responsible for the data. Their history is very bad and fraught with bias, not error.

Moving on, what about my Precious Bodily Fluids, Mandrake.

And 1998 was the warmest year since [accurate] records have been kept. I did not 'cherry pick' anything. I was simply looking at the present upper limit. I fully expect that upper limit to be broken when the Pacific Decadenal Oscillation swings towards warm in 18-20 years.

What remains to be seen is if we are causing what we are seeing. . . . I tend to think not because as a total fraction CO2 which is manmade is what? 4% of the total?

LISTEN: I do NOT disagree that global warming has been occurring - at least on the time scale we can read. We can not say that the warming is not the result, caused by or with any certainty that:

a) it is not a continuing recovery from the Little Ice Age
b) We are not growing grapes in Britain yet- 1000 and 2000 years ago it was possible so it was much warmer then;
c) CO2 is not a very potent 'greenhouse gas,'
d) Manmade CO2 is very small fraction of total CO2 being added to the atmosphere

We do know:

1. The planet is greener than it was in 1962 when color photos were taken regularly - plants like CO2
2. Increased plant yields mean less hunger
3. Warmer temps result in lower human population mortality. Less infectious disease spread and less evolution of the bugs.
4. The climate models suck. First they told us it would warm up and hurricanes would be more plentiful and get worse then they said that there would be more shear and less hurricanes but stronger ones - and then that snow would go away but now its that storms will be fewer but stronger. . . If we can't predict the past, i.e., run the models in reverse and create what we KNOW happened - then they are crap.

 

[Geico266]

Ben, take a deep breath... and hold it.

Granite is the hot thing with counter tops right? You got it! It is off gassing radon like crazy in new homes.

New homes are "tighter" than old ones. Our new house had to pass a "pressure test" to receive an energy star rating. We even have a central vent system. No individual vents for bath rooms, kitchen, laundry rooms , ect. It is amazingly efficient..... but ..... that comes with a price of higher radon levels over older "draftey" homes. You would not believe the level of sealing and caulking we did to this house. We even installed 2" of foam under the concrete floor for insulation. The basement is amazingly warm.

 

[JGoodish]

Ben, take a deep breath... and hold it.

Granite is the hot thing with counter tops right? You got it! It is off gassing radon like crazy in new homes.

New homes are "tighter" than old ones. Our new house had to pass a "pressure test" to receive an energy star rating. We even have a central vent system. No individual vents for bath rooms, kitchen, laundry rooms , ect. It is amazingly efficient..... but ..... that comes with a price of higher radon levels over older "draftey" homes. You would not believe the level of sealing and caulking we did to this house. We even installed 2" of foam under the concrete floor for insulation. The basement is amazingly warm.

Radon typically enters the home through the basement. Today's building techniques, such as sub-slab vapor barriers, tend to mitigate the problem. If a basement is well sealed (not the same thing as insulated), there can be a material drop in interior radon levels as a result.

I am not a scientist of any sort, but I have spent some time researching the risks and realities of indoor radon pollution, in part because Pennsylvania MANDATES a radon test for home resales. In a move that goes beyond the EPA recommendation, Pennsylvania requires that the radon test be conducted in the basement, even if the basement is not finished or used as a living area.

The bottom line is that no one appears to have conclusive data demonstrating a clear link between a determined level of residential radon exposure and any type of negative health effect. As a result, government guidelines on radon exposure vary around the world, often substantially. While the EPA recommended "action level" is 4pCi/L, Canada's was 10, until being recently dropped to around 5.5, from what I recall. Some European countries have base action levels that are much higher. All governments appear to acknowledge that radon is present in outside air, so we are breathing at least a minimal dose all the time anyway.

I'm fairly convinced that too much radon exposure can kill you, but the same is true of water. I'm also convinced that there is a huge industry built up around radon testing and mitigation, happily fueled by all of the FUD about the risks of radon exposure. This industry loves states like PA, who not only require that home resales test at or below the EPA action level of 4pCi/L, but require that they do so in an area of the home most likely to have the highest radon concentration and, especially in older homes, least likely to be an actual living area. The industry no doubt also likes the fact that observed radon levels can vary widely based on the placement of the test device, activity in the room, or even the weather outside.

Thankfully, PA does not require that mitigation be performed by a "certified professional," which means that if you're over the limit, you can do your own mitigation, which generally isn't that difficult.


JKG

 

[weilke]

Thankfully, PA does not require that testing or mitigation be performed by a "certified professional," which means that if you're over the limit, you can do your own mitigation, which generally isn't that difficult.

They also don't have a cop sitting next to the radon probe for the entire duration of the test, so they wont know about that piece of plastic ducting with a fan that you rigged up to keep the thing bathed in fresh outdoor air for 44 of the 48 hrs .

 

[JGoodish]

They also don't have a cop sitting next to the radon probe for the entire duration of the test, so they wont know about that piece of plastic ducting with a fan that you rigged up to keep the thing bathed in fresh outdoor air for 44 of the 48 hrs .

It has been several years since I sold a home in PA, and they now appear to require a "certification" for the test, but not the mitigation. Of course, to your point, I have no idea how a "certified" tester is able to prevent tampering with the test, but I suspect that materially misrepresenting the condition of a home resale has the potential to result in some ugliness for the seller.


JKG

 

[bnt83]

Radon the word itself sounds as scary as the dihydrogen monoxide statistics.


is also known as hydric acid, and is the major component of acid rain.
contributes to the Greenhouse Effect.
may cause severe burns.
contributes to the erosion of our natural landscape.
accelerates corrosion and rusting of many metals.
may cause electrical failures and decreased effectiveness of automobile brakes.
has been found in excised tumors of terminal cancer patients.
Research has shown that significant levels of DHMO were found in the devastating Indian Ocean tsunami in 2004 which killed 230,000 in Indonesia, Thailand, Malaysia and elsewhere, making it the deadliest tsunami in recorded history.
It is widely believed that the levee failures, flooding and the widespread destruction resulting from Hurricane Katrina along the U.S. Gulf Coast in 2005 were caused or exacerbated by excessive DHMO levels found in the Gulf of Mexico, along with other contributing factors.

 

[N801BH]

Radon the word itself sounds as scary as the dihydrogen monoxide statistics.


is also known as hydric acid, and is the major component of acid rain.
contributes to the Greenhouse Effect.
may cause severe burns.
contributes to the erosion of our natural landscape.
accelerates corrosion and rusting of many metals.
may cause electrical failures and decreased effectiveness of automobile brakes.
has been found in excised tumors of terminal cancer patients.
Research has shown that significant levels of DHMO were found in the devastating Indian Ocean tsunami in 2004 which killed 230,000 in Indonesia, Thailand, Malaysia and elsewhere, making it the deadliest tsunami in recorded history.
It is widely believed that the levee failures, flooding and the widespread destruction resulting from Hurricane Katrina along the U.S. Gulf Coast in 2005 were caused or exacerbated by excessive DHMO levels found in the Gulf of Mexico, along with other contributing factors.

You might as well post a pic of John Stossel too as he is the master of that known toxin...

 

[MAKG1]

You do know that beginning in 1993 almost every Soviet weather station in the Arctic was closed, right? So - what did they do? Did they take them all out of the data set going back to 1946? No, of course not. They simply stopped using the cold temps - and as a result guess what happened to the average. You can easily use the 'if you know the answer why get the data' to the people who are responsible for the data. Their history is very bad and fraught with bias, not error.

This shows a stunning lack of understanding of how a measurement is made. One does not simply take all known temperatures and average them together to find the global average. One uses all available information to anchor a global model, weighted according to its measurement uncertainty. This is called "data assimilation," and you should study it before you make wildly misinformed criticism like the above. All available information is not limited to Soviet ground systems. Among other things, it includes satellite data, which oversamples polar regions (and the good folks at NCEP and ECMWF -- and the US Navy -- are not such complete idiots that they don't know how to take that into account). It also includes seaborne data, including Arctic.

 

[MAKG1]

1. The planet is greener than it was in 1962 when color photos were taken regularly - plants like CO2
2. Increased plant yields mean less hunger
3. Warmer temps result in lower human population mortality. Less infectious disease spread and less evolution of the bugs.
4. The climate models suck. First they told us it would warm up and hurricanes would be more plentiful and get worse then they said that there would be more shear and less hurricanes but stronger ones - and then that snow would go away but now its that storms will be fewer but stronger. . . If we can't predict the past, i.e., run the models in reverse and create what we KNOW happened - then they are crap.

#1: My wife worked in that field until very recently. It's patently false. And you haven't explained what "greener" means. The folks that work in the field have a specific Landsat marker they look for. That marker is still being verified in the field. People would like greenness to correlate with biomass density, but it's not all that good a correlation. For instance, it depends upon surface relief when compared to field surveys. A green conifer forest isn't the same as a green grassland.

#2: That depends on what the plants are, doesn't it? Woody evergreen forests aren't very edible.

#3: I guess you don't buy that tropical diseases exist. Must be a conspiracy.

#4: Which "they" are you talking about? Every model is required to reproduce the past in order to be taken seriously, and some work better than others.

 

[docmirror]

Folks, if you've noticed, I've tried to stay away from the EPA generated mini-hysteria. I've also shied away in my discussion of any of the mitigation schemes. It's because I don't know much about the EPAs regs, and I don't know much about mitigation, although I can concede that after reading a few posts by contractors it all sounds like a complete carve up.

Having said that, one thing I DO know about is radiaiton exposures, damaging effects, and the funtions of various isotopes and decays of modern radioactive materials. I'm mostly familiar with the decay products of U235 and Pu isotopes because that's where I used to work, at Gulf General Atomic, and Hanaford, and Peach Bottom, and yes - even at TMI during the 'crisis' days.

My personal radiaiton dose is pretty carefully monitored by me, because I got a pretty good dunking a few times, and I can't afford any/much more without cancer risk. But - I am a corner case. The vast majority of people in the US don't have my problem. Could they develop a problem in the future? Possibly. Is radon the biggest hoax in the US these days? Not even close. Are there serious consequences to ionizing radiation exposure? Ab-so-effing-lutely.

The last question is the one we seem to be stuck on. At what level, and for how long is exposure going to be a problem. I think most non-nuke working people would be ok with 4 picoCuries for many years. Suppose your kid is living in the walk-out basement of a house in W Denver, near the tailing of the old Rocky Flats, and that basement is putting out 20pC, or 50, or 200pC? The kid is sleeping in the basement, on his funky Buzz Lightyear bed, about 6-8" off the ground, and his clothes are down there, and his toys, and sometimes he falls asleep on the floor before bedtime, and he does what kids do, plays on the floor, hour after hour, day after day, years at a time, until he grows out of the Buzz bed. Should a parent be worried? Oh hell yes. Houses right in Denver have been measured at > 200pC in basements. It's also prevalent in PA, and OH, and areas of the south.

Is the EPA out to lunch on their mandates? Prolly. I'm not disputing that. But for someone who is a libertarian all I can offer is to KNOW what your exposure is, and make a decision about it that works for you, notwithstanding the EPA.

I don't personally know if any cases of radon by itself causing a death. I do know of cases where radon could reasonably be a contributing factor. I've had friends who have gotten ill from radiation exposure. It's no fun, and if you want to get sick about something investigate 'chelation'. It's been used, with questionable effect to 'cure' radiation exposure. I'm not a biochemist, but even that seem radical.

So, I test my house for the presence, and ignore the EPA mandates, but take care that I(and family) don't get any ionizing radiation exposure than is absolutely necccessary. For one thing, the same EPA that is so untrusted about the limits they enforce can't then be used as the source of a study which shows a correlation between low exposure to ionizing radiation and lowered cancer risk. The correlation just isn't there. The best case that can be made is that no causative correlation exists. There are some crossover data points, but the triggers, and all the outside potential causative agents have barely been identified, and not always accounted for. Like I put way back, why would higher education or intellegence be a factor in lowered cancer risk? All I can think of is that people with higher education levels know better than to live in a place with radon, or smoke, or do other unhealthy things. But again, that's conjecture, and how do we acount for it without double blind studies and deliberately exposing people to ionizing radiation?

There are plenty of things I know I don't know. I'm ok with that. I do know ionizing radiation is a bad thing. More is worse, and eventually one gets to a trigger point where things go really bad. I'm at the point where I can't take any more so it's a hot button issue for me. Ignore the EPA numbers. I'm fine with that, but at least find out what the raw data is for your house, and then develop a mitigation plan if you think it's too high.

I'm out, it's been fun, and no one got hurt.

 

[JGoodish]

Is the EPA out to lunch on their mandates? Prolly. I'm not disputing that. But for someone who is a libertarian all I can offer is to KNOW what your exposure is, and make a decision about it that works for you, notwithstanding the EPA.

The problem is that meaningful data that would allow someone to make an intelligent decision about the risks of residential radon exposure just doesn't appear to exist. You can say that exposure to radiation is bad, but even that statement isn't universally true. We're exposed to all types of radiation every single day, generated from sunshine to light bulbs to naturally-occuring elements blowing in the wind. The human body is designed to deal with a certain level of pollution in our environment, including radioactive pollution. The problem with radon is that nobody appears to know exactly where the conservative tipping point is between normal or overexposure, and various governments have taken the liberty of ringing a warning bell for a risk that they don't even fully understand.

Inform the public that there may be a risk: responsible.

Create laws or mortality rate tables designed to scare the public using spurious and/or "estimated" data: most irresponsible.

Industry created to take advantage of irresponsible alarmist government behavior: predictable.


JKG