Radon Myth & Truth

douglas393 said:
I would rather deal with those than my teed off wife.:wink2: I gotta a better chance at coming out unscathed.
Click to expand...

Let me think about that.

Back in november, I came home and told my wife that I had bought a plane. She is very sweet, but well, I think plutonium in a glove-box would have been easier to handle in that moment :rofl: .
 
docmirror said:
I don't feel challenged. I know what I know, and I don't know what I don't know. The studies you've shown are pretty interesting. There's a lot of normalization, and 'statistical adjustment' in your links.

So, for example, why do people with advanced education have only a 30% lung cancer risk as opposed to those without advanced education? See? We don't know what we don't know. Statistical adjustments cut both ways. Sure, the EPA numbers are skewed, I conceded that from the get go.

But here's what we know we know, and as a navy nuke, you better not dispute this. 1 There is NO such thing as a safe dose of ionizing radiation. 2 All radiation is cumulative. 3 You don't 'get over' radiation exposure which leads to 4 that effects of radiation exposure, particularly in small doses may only show up 20, 30, 40, 50 years down the road. The sad, and preventable story of Marie Curie dying 40 years after her exposure to ionizing radiation is a bellweather.
Click to expand...

The are "acceptable" daily / weekly / exposure levels above back ground. If they are exceeded workers "stand down" for the period of time they went over their limit. Like deep sea divers decompressing.

Mrs. Curie ( a great example) was exposed to levels of radiation unimaginable by today's standards. She would hold her hand behind the screen to see through her hand with constant X-ray. It took 40 years to get her.

Living with a household radon level is not the death sentence the EPA and radon mitigation companies make it out to be. That's all I'm saying. Just another scare tactic to sell something.
 
Geico266 said:
The are "acceptable" daily / weekly / exposure levels above back ground. If they are exceeded workers "stand down" for the period of time they went over their limit. Like deep sea divers decompressing.

Mrs. Curie ( a great example) was exposed to levels of radiation unimaginable by today's standards. She would hold her hand behind the screen to see through her hand with constant X-ray. It took 40 years to get her.

Living with a household radon level is not the death sentence the EPA and radon mitigation companies make it out to be. That's all I'm saying. Just another scare tactic to sell something.
Click to expand...

You are mixing test cases. There are acceptable levels of exposure for workers in the nuke industry, and patients who must have radiation for therapy or diagnosis. I repeat - there is NO 'safe' radiation dose for homeowners, or airline passengers in the terminal.

Exposure to radiation is highly personalized. While Curie lasted 40 years before she died(she had affects of poisoning many years before), other people will suffer from a much lower exposure, at a much faster rate.

I know you need to get one more shot in about the EPA, which has never been in question to me, so that's fine. But, for those others playing along at home, the rules about ionizing radiation have been explained here, several times, and they are immutable.
 
docmirror said:
You are mixing test cases. There are acceptable levels of exposure for workers in the nuke industry, and patients who must have radiation for therapy or diagnosis. I repeat - there is NO 'safe' radiation dose for homeowners, or airline passengers in the terminal.

Exposure to radiation is highly personalized. While Curie lasted 40 years before she died(she had affects of poisoning many years before), other people will suffer from a much lower exposure, at a much faster rate.

I know you need to get one more shot in about the EPA, which has never been in question to me, so that's fine. But, for those others playing along at home, the rules about ionizing radiation have been explained here, several times, and they are immutable.
Click to expand...

Should I get rid of my smoke detectors?
 
bnt83 said:
Fear is a great motivator...
Click to expand...

And it sells Billions of dollars of Radon Mitigation Systems....:mad::mad2:...


Radon is a by product of decaying Granite and other deep surface rock formations........ There was a study done on Radon Fraud in the Mississippi Delta. Land that is covered by dozens of feet of Dirt /Silt/ Mud.. Test samples shows 0.00 Radon in the soil...... One "aggressive" Radon Mitigation Company worked a small section of Arkansas and sold millions of dollars worth of Radon removal equipment is a place Radon did NOT exist......*ucking crooks.....:mad::yes:...

And the EPA was onboard with the entire program to substantiate their BS..
 
Radon is an exposure by incorporation, and it is an alpha-emitter. That is why I dont want to mess with it. In other areas of radiation protection, there is good reason to believe that the 'linear, no threshold' theory is not correct and that in fact such a threshold exists. When it comes to the radiobiology and epidemiology of radon inhalation, I have no reason to doubt a LNT relationship. Relative to the other risks in my life (frequent travel, private aviation, fast cars), the effect of whatever radon I may have in my basement is probably negligible.

That said, I believe there is a certain degree of hysteria about the effects and a lot of potential for malfeasance by the radon mitigation racket.
 
Radiation hormesis (also called radiation homeostasis) is the hypothesis that low doses of ionizing radiation (within the region and just above natural background levels) are beneficial, stimulating the activation of repair mechanisms that protect against disease, that are not activated in absence of ionizing radiation. The reserve repair mechanisms are hypothesized to be sufficiently effective when stimulated as to not only cancel the detrimental effects of ionizing radiation but also inhibit disease not related to radiation exposure (see hormesis).[1][2][3][4] This counter-intuitive hypothesis has captured the attention of scientists and public alike in recent years.[5]

(Wikipedia)
 
Biological effects
Main article: radiobiology
Ionizing radiation is generally harmful and potentially lethal to living things but can have health benefits in radiation therapy for the treatment of cancer and thyrotoxicosis. Its most common impact is the induction of cancer with a latent period of years or decades after exposure. High doses can cause visually dramatic radiation burns, and/or rapid fatality through acute radiation syndrome. Controlled doses are used for medical imaging and radiotherapy. Some scientists suspect that low doses may have a mild hormetic effect that can improve health.[17]

Some effects of ionizing radiation on human health are stochastic, meaning that their probability of occurrence increases with dose, while the severity is independent of dose. Radiation-induced cancer, teratogenesis, cognitive decline, and heart disease are all examples of stochastic effects. Other conditions such as radiation burns, acute radiation syndrome, chronic radiation syndrome, and radiation-induced thyroiditis are deterministic, meaning they reliably occur above a threshold dose, and their severity increases with dose. Deterministic effects are not necessarily more or less serious than stochastic effects; either can ultimately lead to a temporary nuisance or a fatality.

Wiki
 
Before I sold my townhouse I knew that the buyer/inspector was going to have some issue with radon testing. I did my little google search, read some articles and decided that a person would have to live in the basement for 76 years straight without leaving before they have a significantly increased chance of developing cancer.

So I told the buyer (I really told my agent) that they can spend their own money on radon testing if they planned on living in the basement for 76 years.
 
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.

We were also informed, most scarily of all, that the YOUNGER a person is when starting to receive radiation in medical testing, the more likely they are to develop cancer later, because young persons have so many more years, and cell divisions, ahead of them than do older people. Apparently the radiation damages the cells, and when cells repair themselves, they can ... go awry in the process, leading to cancer.

I know several young mothers who've taken their toddlers in for CT scans for sinus problems.

Today I am just thinking, "We're all screwed!" so will attempt to enjoy each moment. And be less freaked out about risky hobbies like flying in little planes.
 
Geico266 said:
Asbestos, aluminum wire, polyethylene piping, formaldehyde foam insulation. :lol:
Click to expand...

we're all gonna die, the lunatics said so and it's from -
aladar poisoning from apple growers,
Movie Theater popcorn
driving while barefoot
failing to wear clean underwear and getting in an accident
getting VD from a toilet seat
impossible to get pregnant if you - withdraw before ejaculate, sit in a hot bath before having sex, do it with a sibling, wear tight jeans, practice the rhythm method
own a gun
vote for republicans
man made global warming
asteroids that are drawn to earth by man made global warming
Drink 20 Ounce Sodas...
 
Only Geico could think that breathing a radioactive gas isn't bad for you.

I honestly can't blame Geico for not realizing that the vast, vast, vast majority of lung cancer deaths come from smokers, who are mostly distributed along socioeconomic lines. This stuff tends to get fogged up as it gets to the public.

I honestly can't say anything about whether the level set by the government is right or not. A bit too specialized in things in which I don't specialize. Then again, I could be the guy who discovered the stuff and no one here would listen to me. But if I'm purchasing a house I'd be glad to know it's free of radioactive gas. Call me picky.
 
steingar said:
I honestly can't blame Geico for not realizing that the vast, vast, vast majority of lung cancer deaths come from smokers, who are mostly distributed along socioeconomic lines. This stuff tends to get fogged up as it gets to the public.
Click to expand...
The public, in the large, has absolutely no understanding of science as a process. I have come to realize that many people, even those enrolled in science classes, have no interest in understanding it. I had two students argue with me this morning about perpetual motion machines. They claimed that arguing that one could NEVER build one was tantamount to saying we know everything about everything. My counter that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence fell on deaf ears. "I just wanted to make the point that we don't know everything."

Sigh. :(
 
azure said:
The public, in the large, has absolutely no understanding of science as a process. I have come to realize that many people, even those enrolled in science classes, have no interest in understanding it.

(snip)...

extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence fell on deaf ears.

Sigh. :(
Click to expand...

Extraordinary claims made by the left never require much, if any proof, so forgive me if I dismiss another government regulation that popped up without serious investigation.
 
azure said:
The public, in the large, has absolutely no understanding of science as a process. I have come to realize that many people, even those enrolled in science classes, have no interest in understanding it. I had two students argue with me this morning about perpetual motion machines. They claimed that arguing that one could NEVER build one was tantamount to saying we know everything about everything. My counter that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence fell on deaf ears. "I just wanted to make the point that we don't know everything."

Sigh. :(
Click to expand...

It is even far worse than you can imagine. Not only is the public woefully ignorant of science and the scientific process, but the most vocal component are utterly convinced of their own veracity and absolutely will not listen to anyone. Both Bruce and I opted out of an idiotic thread purporting the dangers of artificial sweeteners because folks used their high school chemistry to make nonsensical arguments and could not be deterred by actual biochemistry or physiology. And this is the monied population. I hate to think about how bad things are in the poorer populations who don't have access to things like a college education.
 
Demon-Haunted_World.jpg


http://www.amazon.com/The-Demon-Hau...362000058&sr=8-1&keywords=demon+haunted+world
 
rpadula said:
No, but most accidents occur within 5 miles of the home, so you should move ten miles away.

:goofy:
Click to expand...


Dont forget crossing the road as a pedestrian is dangerous! only cross at crosswalks as the LAW REQUIRES...

Jaywalking is a term commonly used in Anglo America to refer to illegal or reckless pedestrian crossing of a roadway. Examples include a pedestrian crossing between intersections without yielding to drivers and starting to cross a crosswalk at a signalized intersection without waiting for a permissive indication to be displayed. In the United States, state statutes generally reflect the Uniform Vehicle Code in requiring drivers to yield the right of way to pedestrians at crosswalks; at other locations, crossing pedestrians are either required to yield to drivers or, under some conditions, are prohibited from crossing.
 
You mean like global warming Ben? Wasn't that your issue of the month?

Temperatures in the northern hemisphere have not gone up since 1998.

The computer models tell us that by 2015 [30 years after the scare began] global temps should be up 2F - more like 0.05F

Al Gore warned us in 1992 that snow would be a rare thing by 2012 and children would marvel at it when it did fall. Now - 2011-2012 was a pretty darn warm winter- and he nailed it there- but one year later we're back to normal. Ooops.

There is no logical argument that will successfully challenge a liberal belief system since every fact can be dismissed.
 
Last edited:
I'm known to the state of California to cause cancer and birth defects or other reproductive harm.
 
bnt83 said:
Dont forget crossing the road as a pedestrian is dangerous! only cross at crosswalks as the LAW REQUIRES...

Jaywalking is a term commonly used in Anglo America to refer to illegal or reckless pedestrian crossing of a roadway. Examples include a pedestrian crossing between intersections without yielding to drivers and starting to cross a crosswalk at a signalized intersection without waiting for a permissive indication to be displayed. In the United States, state statutes generally reflect the Uniform Vehicle Code in requiring drivers to yield the right of way to pedestrians at crosswalks; at other locations, crossing pedestrians are either required to yield to drivers or, under some conditions, are prohibited from crossing.
Click to expand...

I have a major street that I cross when I walk my dog - it is a state major arterial. Not numbered - only 1 lane in each direction. 50 feet wide - its not a local street - no lights, no stop signs. Yet - in an entire 2 mile section, with numerous crossing streets - there are NO cross walks. THE UVC suggests that we walk a mile in each direction to find a cross walk?

The Calif VC states that pedestrians have the right of way over vehicles. PERIOD.

Such does not mean that a pedestrian can be breaking the law while exercising that right to cross a particular street.

About 4 months ago I was walking the dog - and there was a long line of cars that I waited for because - a dog can be unpredictable and I wanted to cross safely. A cop comes along and is waiting to cross as well - there is break one side - and I see a decent place in the flow to cross so I started and a car comes out of a street 100 yards away or so and hits the gas. While I'm in the intersection [not middle of the street - duh] crossing. And he just forces me to stop in the middle of the street with cars coming up behind me - and my dog straining at the leash - to let him go by - and gives me the finger as he goes by. Nice guy.

Said cop looks at me - raises his eyebrow and I nodded my head - and he took off after him. Thats a $500 ticket when you add on the fees. ouch.
 
comanchepilot said:
Temperatures in the northern hemisphere have not gone up since 1998.
Click to expand...

That statement can only be made by cherry-picking the starting year for the comparison. It would be just as valid to cherry-pick 1999 as the starting year, which would result in the opposite statement. Neither way is valid.

model122.jpg


http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/02/2012-updates-to-model-observation-comparions/

Looking at the long term trends, there have been previous times when temperatures have leveled off and dropped for a while, only to resume their upward trend:

glnhsh.png


http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/temp/jonescru/jones.html

Consequently, it's premature to conclude that the long term upward trend has stopped.
 
Last edited:
comanchepilot said:
You mean like global warming Ben? Wasn't that your issue of the month?
Click to expand...

Another part of science that folks won't believe no matter what they're told or see. Doesn't matter at all. Minds made up and unshakable. In 20 years time the US will officially be a third world country. The ignorant are winning. The only good thing is I doubt neither Canada nor Mexico are doing any better.

I remember watching Idiocracy and finding it chillingly close to the truth.
 
How did we end up getting from radon to global warming ?
 
weilke said:
Let me think about that.

Back in november, I came home and told my wife that I had bought a plane. She is very sweet, but well, I think plutonium in a glove-box would have been easier to handle in that moment :rofl: .
Click to expand...

Did you get to keep the airplane?

Dan
 
comanchepilot said:
You mean like global warming Ben? Wasn't that your issue of the month?

Temperatures in the northern hemisphere have not gone up since 1998.

The computer models tell us that by 2015 [30 years after the scare began] global temps should be up 2F - more like 0.05F

Al Gore warned us in 1992 that snow would be a rare thing by 2012 and children would marvel at it when it did fall. Now - 2011-2012 was a pretty darn warm winter- and he nailed it there- but one year later we're back to normal. Ooops.

There is no logical argument that will successfully challenge a liberal belief system since every fact can be dismissed.
Click to expand...

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?
 
Last edited:
After reading all this I realized I never answered Geico's question.....


MYTH....
 
Last edited:
steingar said:
It is even far worse than you can imagine. Not only is the public woefully ignorant of science and the scientific process, but the most vocal component are utterly convinced of their own veracity and absolutely will not listen to anyon.
Click to expand...


Like global warming? :yes:

Once politicians skew the information and present it to the public in politically slanted terms the sheep ( citizens) buy it hook line and sinker. Just like man made global warming.
 
Geico266 said:
The EPA concluded that elevated levels of radon gas DECREASES the level of lung cancer. While I would like to take credit for that FACT I cannot. The EPA beat me to it. ;)

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

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.
 
Geico266 said:
Professor, please try and keep up. :rolleyes:

The EPA concluded that elevated levels of radon gas DECREASES the level of lung cancer. While I would like to take credit for that FACT I cannot. The EPA beat me to it.
Click to expand...

Yeah, because you found a website. Whatever.
 
Geico266 said:
Like global warming? :yes:

Once politicians skew the information and present it to the public in politically slanted terms the sheep ( citizens) buy it hook line and sinker. Just like man made global warming.
Click to expand...

Exactly like global warming, where a bunch of self-assured and very noisy amateurs pit themselves and their high school science (or lack thereof) against folks who live and breathe the stuff. 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.

By the way, the reason folks and bought into anthropogenic climate change "hook line and sinker" is because they have eyes and can see what's going on around them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top