radon mitigation exposure concern, are we at risk?

Questions on how we spend our money and our time - consumer goods and services, home and vehicle, leisure and recreational activities
User avatar
queso
Posts: 631
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: radon mitigation exposure concern, are we at risk?

Post by queso » Fri Aug 10, 2018 1:01 pm

grayfox,
Thanks for the links. I just now got around to reviewing them and watching the videos. I did some poking around and found some hysterical threads on interNACHI and other boards that Caoimhin Connell got involved in. Not surprising, he's not too popular with the home inspector/radon remediation crowd. These two had me rolling for a bit:

"You may be an excellent realtor and home inspector, but, with the greatest of respect, I must say that based on your many comments on this board, you have a seriously lacking in the understanding of radiation toxicology and epidemiology. That is not an insult since you are neither an health physicist, nor an industrial hygienist and are not expected to have a good grasp of these fields. However, whilst I recognize my weaknesses in other fields (for example I NEVER inspect homes, work on cars, attempt to perform dentistry, or build rockets), you seem to be unwilling to recognize that you are deficient in the fields of epidemiology, radiation toxicology and industrial hygiene."




"Let’s take your logic to its ultimate conclusion. Given: “Science tells us that radon (correctly spelled with a lower case “r” by the way), is ubiquitous in our residential air; but is present at concentrations below the LOAEL, but as a “precaution” we should reduce the concentrations even further, and besides the costs are insignificant compared to the price of the house.”

Very well then - Science also tells us that another element, lead, (correctly spelled with a lower case “L” by the way), is ubiquitous in our residential air; but is present at concentrations below the LOAEL. As a “precaution” why have you not installed a device to reduce the concentrations of lead even further? Besides the costs are insignificant compared to the price of the house.

Science also tells us that the deadly vapor benzene, is ubiquitous in our residential air; but is present at concentrations below the LOAEL. As a “precaution” why have you not installed a device to reduce the concentrations of benzene even further? After all the costs are insignificant compared to the price of the house.

Science also tells us that the proven carcinogen, asbestos, is ubiquitous in our residential air; but is present at concentrations below the LOAEL. As a “precaution” why have you not installed a device to reduce the concentrations of asbestos even further? After all the costs are insignificant compared to the price of the house.

Speaking of lead, have you placed a thin layer of lead in your ceiling to protect you from the ubiquitous bombardment of cosmic radiation in your home, if not – why not?"

User avatar
grayfox
Posts: 4939
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:30 am

Re: radon mitigation exposure concern, are we at risk?

Post by grayfox » Fri Aug 10, 2018 1:29 pm

jayk238 wrote:
Mon Aug 06, 2018 8:29 pm
We are renting a home and about say 50 yards from us is another home with a radon mitigation system- basically a PVC pipe that is about 16 to 20 feet above and venting out radon.

Is this safe for us? Its a bit unnerving because the pipe opening is facing us but obviously its closest to them.

What concerns me is that I never see that family outside and am wondering if its due to this

I know radon is outside everywhere but wondering if we are being exposed to higher levels sitting on our deck so close to them

This home itself doesnt have a basement, although I know the EPA says it can happen anywhere.

I plan to buy a radon testing kit just for this place

We will only rent here for a year but you never can be too careful
After researching the subject of indoor radon, here is my answer to the OP:

If you are worried about risk of radon from your neighbor, or radon emanating from inside your own home, spend a few dollars to purchase a radon detector. Here are three that were mentioned:

Airthings Wave $199
Pro-Series 3 Electronic Radon Detector $149.99
Corentium Home Radon Detector $190.54

Monitor the radon level over time in different places inside and outside of your home. You should test continuously over the whole year to see any seasonal variations.

I will probably do this myself, just out of curiosity, and to get some practical experience measuring the level of ionizing radiation in the home. I think it will prove educational and worth an investment in a detector.

User avatar
grayfox
Posts: 4939
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:30 am

Re: radon mitigation exposure concern, are we at risk?

Post by grayfox » Sat Aug 11, 2018 9:07 pm

Holy cow! This guy has a Geiger Counter and shows that his air filters are radioactive.

Radioactive Material in My Air?

I was watching another video where he testa the rainwater after a rainstorm, and guess what? The rain is also radioactive!

Call_Me_Op
Posts: 7065
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 2:57 pm
Location: Milky Way

Re: radon mitigation exposure concern, are we at risk?

Post by Call_Me_Op » Sun Aug 12, 2018 6:57 am

grayfox wrote:
Sat Aug 11, 2018 9:07 pm
Holy cow! This guy has a Geiger Counter and shows that his air filters are radioactive.

Radioactive Material in My Air?

I was watching another video where he testa the rainwater after a rainstorm, and guess what? The rain is also radioactive!
Everything is radioactive to some degree - even the human body. The dose makes the poison.

Also, as many may know, there is a long-standing argument regarding whether low-levels of radiation are harmful (LNT hypothesis) or whether there is a threshold above which the dose begins to cause harm.
Best regards, -Op | | "In the middle of difficulty lies opportunity." Einstein

User avatar
tadamsmar
Posts: 7883
Joined: Mon May 07, 2007 12:33 pm

Re: radon mitigation exposure concern, are we at risk?

Post by tadamsmar » Sun Aug 12, 2018 7:31 am

There is direct evidence that low levels (100 Bq/m3 or 2.7 pCi/L) of radon lead to lung cancer:

https://www.epa.gov/radon/health-risk-radon#iowa

https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/fi ... ooling.pdf

Caoimhin Connell and others seem to ignore the direct evidence. Connell says all the individual studies are negative. What about the pooled studies?

But, I don't know that there is direct evidence that low levels of radon lead to lung cancer in non-smokers. I have never seen that clarified.

User avatar
grayfox
Posts: 4939
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:30 am

Re: radon mitigation exposure concern, are we at risk?

Post by grayfox » Sun Aug 12, 2018 9:29 am

tadamsmar wrote:
Sun Aug 12, 2018 7:31 am
There is direct evidence that low levels (100 Bq/m3 or 2.7 pCi/L) of radon lead to lung cancer:

https://www.epa.gov/radon/health-risk-radon#iowa

https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/fi ... ooling.pdf

Caoimhin Connell and others seem to ignore the direct evidence. Connell says all the individual studies are negative. What about the pooled studies?

But, I don't know that there is direct evidence that low levels of radon lead to lung cancer in non-smokers. I have never seen that clarified.
From FACT SHEET Pooling of European Residential Radon Studies
Conclusion: Data provides direct evidence of a statistically significant association of residential radon exposure and lung cancer, as predicted by extrapolation from the miner studies.
That guy, Caoimhin Connell, made a big deal out of the language used, i.e. association, correlation or causation. And here I see that the conclusion does not say radon exposure causes lung cancer or even radon exposure is correlated with lung cancer. Just association.

It seems like the language is carefully chosen. Why don't they just flat say "low-level radon exposure (100 Bq/m^3) causes lung cancer"? Why is that not the conclusion of the pooled study. Why say associated and not say causes?

User avatar
tadamsmar
Posts: 7883
Joined: Mon May 07, 2007 12:33 pm

Re: radon mitigation exposure concern, are we at risk?

Post by tadamsmar » Sun Aug 12, 2018 9:58 am

grayfox wrote:
Sun Aug 12, 2018 9:29 am
It seems like the language is carefully chosen. Why don't they just flat say "low-level radon exposure (100 Bq/m^3) causes lung cancer"? Why is that not the conclusion of the pooled study. Why say associated and not say causes?
Associations may not be causal. Maybe the people who don't test or remediate for radon have other habits that lead to lung cancer. Both radon levels and genetic heritage are not uniformly geographically distributed, so maybe there is a coincidence leading to the association.

I think the mechanistic relationship between radiation, gene damage, and cancer is well established in some cases. But sometimes unexpected stuff happens, I suppose gene damage could ramp up gene repair mechanisms.

User avatar
grayfox
Posts: 4939
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:30 am

Re: radon mitigation exposure concern, are we at risk?

Post by grayfox » Sun Aug 12, 2018 10:18 am

So basically the pooled studies, American and European, have not found enough evidence to say that low-level radon exposure (100 Bq/m^3) causes lung cancer. Apparently not enough evidence to even say that it is correlated. The only conclusion they can draw is that low-level radon exposure (100 Bq/m^3) is associate with lung cancer.

People often die in hospitals. So you can say that there is an association between people dying and hospitals. But you can not conclude that hospitals are causing people to die. In fact, the opposite is true: Hospitals save lives.

User avatar
tadamsmar
Posts: 7883
Joined: Mon May 07, 2007 12:33 pm

Re: radon mitigation exposure concern, are we at risk?

Post by tadamsmar » Sun Aug 12, 2018 10:50 am

grayfox wrote:
Sun Aug 12, 2018 10:18 am
So basically the pooled studies, American and European, have not found enough evidence to say that low-level radon exposure (100 Bq/m^3) causes lung cancer. Apparently not enough evidence to even say that it is correlated. The only conclusion they can draw is that low-level radon exposure (100 Bq/m^3) is associate with lung cancer.
The results were highly significant with P=0.0007.

They did not use the word "correlation" either because it is redundant, or maybe because they consider "correlation" to be a specific technical term that did not apply to their particular statistical methods. Probably the former

User avatar
grayfox
Posts: 4939
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:30 am

Re: radon mitigation exposure concern, are we at risk?

Post by grayfox » Sun Aug 12, 2018 11:07 am

Here's a good one: Geiger Counter Measuring Vintage Radioactive Red Fiestaware Dinner Plate

27,500 counts per minute. :D

Well, that was from the 1930s to 1950s. But now we know better, right?

My IPad is Radioactive!!! Did Not Expect That... :oops:

----------
More fun with Geiger Counters:
Radioactive Toilet! Testing the Hot Seat!
My Radioactive Hotel Room
Radioactive Hotel Room - Mystery Solved!

α, β, γ radiation...You just can't get away from it! :o

Post Reply