Radon Myth & Truth

Geico266

Geico266

Touchdown! Greaser!
Joined
Jun 15, 2008
Messages
19,136
Location
Husker Nation, NE
Display Name
Display name:
Geico
Anyone else get caught up in the radon myth? Selling or buying a home today almost requires it. More make work brought to you by mind numbed EPA regulators.

Arbitrary EPA numbers are meaningless. There are NO studies that show an increase in lung cancer and radon levels in homes. The EPA took mine worker deaths from lung cancer and extrapolated their death rates to cover home owners.

In fact, for reasons unknown, the higher the radon level the LESS occurrence of lung cancer. :mad2:

http://www.forensic-applications.com/radon/radon.html
 
Geico266 said:
Anyone else get caught up in the radon myth? Selling or buying a home today almost requires it. More make work brought to you by mind numbed EPA regulators.

Arbitrary EPA numbers are meaningless. There are NO studies that show an increase in lung cancer and radon levels in homes. The EPA took mine worker deaths from lung cancer and extrapolated their death rates to cover home owners.

In fact, for reasons unknown, the higher the radon level the LESS occurrence of lung cancer. :mad2:

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

I can say without hesitation, Radon is an absolute scam......

I have done personal tests using certified kits.. Send them in to certified labs to get analyzed.... Came back .05 pico's.... At the same time, without letting 2 Radon mitigation specialists know, I hired those firms to do their professional testing in the
same space. One came back .9 and the other test came back 4 X that....

Outright FRAUD....:mad::mad::mad2:
 
Well, as someone with a pretty detailed history in the radiation field, I can tell you that Radon, element number 86, with several natural isotopes(all radioactive) is not a myth.

Here's an easy question for you: What has the NRC and all radiation monitoring groups around the world settled on as a 'safe' dose of radiation?

Another softball for you. Do people 'get over' a radiation exposure, like they get over the common cold?

Bonus question. Since Radon is a gas at STP and is heavier than 'standard' air(N2, O2, water vapor, plus trace stuff), if someone is sleeping in an enclosed basement, in a bed in winter, are they safe from Radon exposure?

Maybe the EPA numbers are made up of whole cloth, but you can trust me here, you don't want to live with it.
 
docmirror said:
Well, as someone with a pretty detailed history in the radiation field, I can tell you that Radon, element number 86, with several natural isotopes(all radioactive) is not a myth.

Here's an easy question for you: What has the NRC and all radiation monitoring groups around the world settled on as a 'safe' dose of radiation?

Another softball for you. Do people 'get over' a radiation exposure, like they get over the common cold?

Bonus question. Since Radon is a gas at STP and is heavier than 'standard' air(N2, O2, water vapor, plus trace stuff), if someone is sleeping in an enclosed basement, in a bed in winter, are they safe from Radon exposure?

Maybe the EPA numbers are made up of whole cloth, but you can trust me here, you don't want to live with it.
Click to expand...

Please provide just ONE documented case of Radon causing cancer or any other health problem.
 
N801BH said:
Please provide just ONE documented case of Radon causing cancer or any other health problem.
Click to expand...

Sorry, if you don't pass the quiz, I don't give you answers. :D
 
Geico266 said:
Anyone else get caught up in the radon myth? Selling or buying a home today almost requires it. More make work brought to you by mind numbed EPA regulators.

Arbitrary EPA numbers are meaningless. There are NO studies that show an increase in lung cancer and radon levels in homes. The EPA took mine worker deaths from lung cancer and extrapolated their death rates to cover home owners.

In fact, for reasons unknown, the higher the radon level the LESS occurrence of lung cancer. :mad2:

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


But...but... the government is never wrong, always speaks the truth, shall never be challenged and their #1 priority is SAFETY. Well maybe thatls #1.5.... #1 being spending and # 1.25 being taxes.
 
Do not remember the specifics but when I purchase my home in Ohio it was require to have a "radon removal device." The house was built with it. The issue is not so much during the months when you have open windows but when the house is closed up. I did the research on Radon to educate myself, and was it was convincing to my naturally skeptical mind. In any case, the way I felt about it is that I know radon is not good for you, and if there is even a small chance the experts are right, the cost for them being right is quite high if I ignore it and the cost for them being wrong may be economical substantial but is not in the same universe as them being right. So I went with the flow and had it done.
 
bnt83 said:
But...but... the government is never wrong, always speaks the truth, shall never be challenged and their #1 priority is SAFETY. Well maybe thatls #1.5.... #1 being spending and # 1.25 being taxes.
Click to expand...

"Where did you hear that?"
(in unison) "The internet." :wink2:
 
Had a close friend hospitalized for several months with acute radon poisoning (or whatever they call it)

Do you two ever consider using logic rather than spewing stupid crap you find on the internet out as truth?
Go grab your tinfoil hats and leave us alone.
 
douglas393 said:
Do not remember the specifics but when I purchase my home in Ohio it was require to have a "radon removal device." The house was built with it. The issue is not so much during the months when you have open windows but when the house is closed up. I did the research on Radon to educate myself, and was it was convincing to my naturally skeptical mind. In any case, the way I felt about it is that I know radon is not good for you, and if there is even a small chance the experts are right, the cost for them being right is quite high if I ignore it and the cost for them being wrong may be economical substantial but is not in the same universe as them being right. So I went with the flow and had it done.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Mtns2Skies said:
Had a close friend hospitalized for several months with acute radon poisoning (or whatever they call it)

Do you two ever consider using logic rather than spewing stupid crap you find on the internet out as truth?
Go grab your tinfoil hats and leave us alone.
Click to expand...

Acute radon poisoning? Are you sure? I some experience in radiation health physics and I find this hard to believe. I've not seen any reference in the literature to anything but long-term low-level exposure in homes.
 
I have seen my share of radiation. Three things I don't want to ever mess with are plutonium, cesium and radon.
 
Electromagnetism(from power sources) <> Ionizing radiation.

An alpha particle can't penetrate much, but it's like a bull in a china shop when inhaled. Beta particles have a bit better penetration and cause plenty of damage to soft tissue on, and under the skin, including serious issues to the membranes of the peritoneal cavity, and all the goey stuff inside.

Please, despite the scare factor of the EPA, don't mess with Radon exposure.
 
Mtns2Skies said:
Had a close friend hospitalized for several months with acute radon poisoning (or whatever they call it)

Do you two ever consider using logic rather than spewing stupid crap you find on the internet out as truth?
Go grab your tinfoil hats and leave us alone.
Click to expand...


I'm sure it was all radon's fault, and there were no other health factors that played a role. :rolleyes:

http://www.epa.gov/ttnatw01/hlthef/radionuc.html

Cancer Risk:
  • Radium and radon are potent human carcinogens. Radium, via oral exposure, is known to cause lung, bone, head (mastoid air cells), and nasal passage tumors. Radon, via inhalation exposure, causes lung cancer. (3,4)
  • Smokers exposed to radon are at greater risk for lung cancer (approximately 10 to 20 times) than are nonsmokers similarly exposed. (1)
  • Studies in uranium miners have shown an increase in lung cancer and tumors of the lymphatic and hematopoietic tissues from inhalation exposure. However, it is not known whether the cancer risk is from uranium itself, or from radon or other confounding factors. (2)
  • EPA has not classified radium, radon or uranium for carcinogenicity. (2-4)
 
weilke said:
I have seen my share of radiation. Three things I don't want to ever mess with are plutonium, cesium and radon.
Click to expand...
I would rather deal with those than my teed off wife.:wink2: I gotta a better chance at coming out unscathed.
 
Old Geek said:
Acute radon poisoning? Are you sure? I some experience in radiation health physics and I find this hard to believe. I've not seen any reference in the literature to anything but long-term low-level exposure in homes.
Click to expand...

I asked him and he said Kidney damage is the primary symptom that he had and when tested had high levels of radon. Where I'm at in CO is rather close to an old Uranium mine, and Radon (as you may know) is a product of Uranium.
http://des.nh.gov/organization/commissioner/pip/factsheets/ard/documents/ard-ehp-22.pdf
"There is a provisional MCL for radon, which has draft status and is, therefore, non-enforceable. The MCL for radon is 30 ppb based on its potential to accumulate in the kidney and damage it."

It is possible there were traces of Uranium but this was not confirmed.
 
Last edited:
weilke said:
I have seen my share of radiation. Three things I don't want to ever mess with are plutonium, cesium and radon.
Click to expand...

You forgot Cf-252. Nasty little pecker. It's the worst transUranic.
 
docmirror said:
Electromagnetism(from power sources) <> Ionizing radiation.

An alpha particle can't penetrate much, but it's like a bull in a china shop when inhaled. Beta particles have a bit better penetration and cause plenty of damage to soft tissue on, and under the skin, including serious issues to the membranes of the peritoneal cavity, and all the goey stuff inside.

Please, despite the scare factor of the EPA, don't mess with Radon exposure.
Click to expand...
Do not forget gamma radiation, the granddaddy of them all.
 
Haaaaaaaaaahaaaahahaaaaaa!!!!!,,, whew, I blew beer out the nose.
 
Radon, lead remediation, mold, toxic drywall...

what else am I missing?
 
docmirror said:
Haaaaaaaaaahaaaahahaaaaaa!!!!!,,, whew, I blew beer out the nose.
Click to expand...


A waste of good beer. ;)


A later study 10 (referred to as the Cohen Study), which is one of the largest studies, incorporated about 33% of the counties in the U.S. and looked at the issue of the linear, no-threshold dose-risk relationship used by the EPA. In this study, a least squares linear regression of lung cancer rates vs. mean radon levels gave a negative correlation between death and exposure levels. In other words, the higher the radon level in the county, the lower the death rate from lung cancer was for the community. The result was not due to questionable interpretation of shaky statistics; each of the studies showed a negative correlation with slopes of not less than seven standard deviations (and sometimes greater than 10 standard deviations) greater than zero. This study, known as an "ecological" epidemiological study, looks at relationships between exposure groups and mortality rates. Ecological epidemiological studies carry less weight than studies based on individuals where the actual exposures are known and the study cohort is compared to an unexposed group. In an ecological study, the person who dies may not have been the person who was exposed to the insult. Additionally, ecological studies tend to be more susceptible to confounders. Nevertheless, the author of the Cohen Study maintained that in a study on linear no-threshold relationships, this limitation is not considered to be applicable since the mortality rate depends directly on the average exposure.

Taken from the link in post # 1.
 
Radon and Risk
Industrial Hygienists, in general, are engaged in protection of humans against the harmful effects of ionizing (and nonionizing radiation). The specialized field of managing ionizing radiation is known as “Health Physics” and the job of the Health Physicist is to manage the beneficial use of ionizing radiation while protecting workers and the public from potential hazards. Although political organizations (such as the US EPA) publish a variety of statements of elevated risk, to date (2010) there are no scientific studies that have ever actually shown that radon gas, as typically seen in houses, increases the risk of cancer. To be clear: There are NO valid studies that have conclusively demonstrated that typical residential exposures to radon increase the risk of cancer at all. In fact, all of the valid studies performed thus far show one of two things: 1) No risk and/or 2) a decreasing risk of cancer. This view is reflected in a position statement issued by the Health Physics Society, the premier Health Physics organization in the US. According to the position statement issued by the Health Physics Society1a, for doses below 100 mSv (10 rem) “…risks of health effects are either too small to be observed or are non-existent."


 
Last edited:
docmirror said:
Well, as someone with a pretty detailed history in the radiation field, I can tell you that Radon, element number 86, with several natural isotopes(all radioactive) is not a myth.

Here's an easy question for you: What has the NRC and all radiation monitoring groups around the world settled on as a 'safe' dose of radiation?

Another softball for you. Do people 'get over' a radiation exposure, like they get over the common cold?

Bonus question. Since Radon is a gas at STP and is heavier than 'standard' air(N2, O2, water vapor, plus trace stuff), if someone is sleeping in an enclosed basement, in a bed in winter, are they safe from Radon exposure?

Maybe the EPA numbers are made up of whole cloth, but you can trust me here, you don't want to live with it.
Click to expand...

1. I said the adverse health risks of radon are a myth, not radon itself.
2. Yes, radiation exposure is cummulative, but after time ( half life break down) exposure can continue. Wore dosimeter for years, radcon qualified, USN, 70's so I'm still glowing. :eek:
3. Where are the studies to link it to cancer? Not coal or urainum miners as the EPA used, home owners??
 
Last edited:
"A large portion of the general population is under the misconception that the frequently published risks associated with radon are well accepted scientific facts. In reality, the vast majority of well designed studies do not support policy or positions that exposures to indoor radon pose a significant threat to health, and indeed, the majority of those studies indicate that, at concentrations typically seen in homes, as the level of radon increases, the risk of lung cancer goes down, not up.
 
Last edited:
Geico266 said:
1. I said the adverse health risks of radon are a myth, not radon itself.
2. Yes, radiation exposure is cummulative, but after time ( half life break down) exposure can continue. Wore dosimeter for years, radcon qualified, USN, 70's so I'm still glowing. :eek:
3. Where are the studies to link it to cancer? Not coal or urainum miners as the EPA used, home owners??
Click to expand...

I see you're not going to trust me. Oh well, it's the internet, you can claim anything you want.

smoking is not hazardous either, RJ Reynolds says so. Neither is asbestos. So, light up, scrape out your asbestos ducts, and then take a nap on the basement floor.

Wearing a dosimeter <> nuclear engineering. I don't know what a 'radcon' is. Sorry.
 
docmirror said:
I see you're not going to trust me. Oh well, it's the internet, you can claim anything you want.

smoking is not hazardous either, RJ Reynolds says so. Neither is asbestos. So, light up, scrape out your asbestos ducts, and then take a nap on the basement floor.

Wearing a dosimeter <> nuclear engineering. I don't know what a 'radcon' is. Sorry.
Click to expand...

:redface: Racon means I was a grunt able to work in a hot area, nuke subs. I was expendable. ;)

I'm just having a conversation here. :dunno:

I'm not challenging your credentials or knowledge. I'm sure you are aware of the mountains of inaccurate information out there. I certainly don't want to add to it. What I'm reading about radon is a complete money grab by start up companies scaring the hell out of the home buying public.

Am I wrong? Why?
 
Last edited:
bnt83 said:
phthalates
Click to expand...
Dissolved medications in our water supply, from all of who flush our antibiotics, pain medications, heart medications, etc down the toilet. Now how flushing the medications differs from the metabolites many of which ar active found in our urine and feces I do not know.
 
douglas393 said:
Dissolved medications in our water supply, from all of who flush our antibiotics, pain medications, heart medications, etc down the toilet. Now how flushing the medications differs from the metabolites many of which ar active found in our urine and feces I do not know.
Click to expand...


aluminum exposure ie aluminum cookware, and soda cans...

floride in tap water and toothpaste etc
 
douglas393 said:
Dissolved medications in our water supply, from all of who flush our antibiotics, pain medications, heart medications, etc down the toilet. Now how flushing the medications differs from the metabolites many of which ar active found in our urine and feces I do not know.
Click to expand...


EXACTLY! Challenge everything!
 
Asbestos, aluminum wire, polyethylene piping, formaldehyde foam insulation.

Radon, lead remediation, mold, toxic drywall...

mercury from broken CFL's

plutonium, cesium and radon.

sounds like a 21st century Billy Joel Song . . . the next stanza of 'We Didn't Start the Fire . . . "
 
comanchepilot said:
Asbestos, aluminum wire, polyethylene piping, formaldehyde foam insulation.

Radon, lead remediation, mold, toxic drywall...

mercury from broken CFL's

plutonium, cesium and radon.

sounds like a 21st century Billy Joel Song . . . the next stanza of 'We Didn't Start the Fire . . . "
Click to expand...

"Bill Clinton back again.....":lol:
 
Geico266 said:
:redface: Racon means I was a grunt able to work in a hot area, nuke subs. I was expendable. ;)

I'm just having a conversation here. :dunno:

I'm not challenging your credentials or knowledge. I'm sure you are aware of the mountains of inaccurate information out there. I certainly don't want to add to it. What I'm reading about radon is a complete money grab by start up companies scaring the hell out of the home buying public.

Am I wrong? Why?
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top