Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We put in an offer on a house with an unfinished basement, built in the 1870's. A radon test from 2015 says it has levels of 3.2 pCi/L in the basement, the epa says mitigation should be looked at if levels are at 4 pCi/L or higher. We have a 7 year old child, and I am nervous.
Should we request that seller mitigate the radon, or reduce price so we can mitigate? Should this be a deal breaker? Any idea for costs to mitigate, I understand it is generally a fan in the basement to blow air out of a pipe into the atmosphere.
3.2 is fine...4.0 is the permissible limit, and usually those are set with some safety margin.
Last fall, we invoked the radon contingency in our contract, and walked away from a home that tested at 35 pCi/L!
Why haven't you gotten your own radon test? A house is the largest investment you can make. If you can't be bothered to spend a couple hundred bucks for peace of mind, then you shouldn't be buying a house.
Because its scheduled for Monday. Try not to assume so much next time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ss20ts
Why haven't you gotten your own radon test? A house is the largest investment you can make. If you can't be bothered to spend a couple hundred bucks for peace of mind, then you shouldn't be buying a house.
A lot of homes in CT have radon due to the rocky terrain. Our neighborhood sits on red rock and the previous owners had a rating of 4 and installed a system, tests done during our contracting shows levels below 1 which were more than satisfactory for us. It is however still a relatively new thing and a lot of older homes do not have mitigation systems or even know about radon so when a sale comes up and suddenly they are poised with a potential of dropping the price or paying upwards of $1500 for a system can be annoying.
I'm sure my neighbors have higher levels but they do not have systems in all their homes, it is pretty prominent in newer construction in the area.
Because its scheduled for Monday. Try not to assume so much next time.
You never said you were having YOUR OWN radon test done! You were asking about a test done by someone else in 2015. That's why I asked why weren't you having your own done. Others said you should do your own test as well. It's up to all buyers to do their own due diligence. No one will do it for you.
Lots of misinformation in this thread....not making any claims or whether to worry or not worry, but let's just get facts straight for you.
The notion that <4 is harmless is simply not true. Nothing magical happens between 3.999 and 4.000. As I mentioned, these are mostly epidemiological studies and so only provide information about distributions over populations, not an inference for any specific individual.
Anecdotes from individuals who have been exposed to >4 levels of radon "their entire childhood" and are fine is NOT a generalizable fact. We all know people who chain smoke 2 packs a day into their 90s who die of natural causes and people who smoke 1/2 pack a day diagnosed with lung cancer at 45. These "N of 1" cases are meaningless when used for extrapolation.
Unlike smoking, radon is difficult to study. Smoking exposure data is much more amenable to proper data collection because the units are packs or cigarettes and exposure is direct inhalation and relatively consistent between individuals of a population (most people inhale and smoke entire cig).
Claiming radon is "all good" merely because it's naturally occurring is also baseless. I can't even begin to list the numerous "natural" molecules that are acutely toxic and/or lethal nevermind the even greater list that act as susceptibility factors. Of course this has been around and yes it comes from geological material, but the posed risk results from the radon being trapped in modern structures thus elevating levels beyond the negligible amounts humans were/are exposed to outside.
Last edited by Sigequinox; 03-30-2017 at 10:20 AM..
^+. I think however you have given a realtor somewhere to put a description on the home to the tone of "3 bedroom 2 bath cape set on a level landscape with beautiful landscaping. Attached 2 car garage, organic radon, and all appliances included."
Lots of misinformation in this thread....not making any claims or whether to worry or not worry, but let's just get facts straight for you.
The notion that <4 is harmless is simply not true. Nothing magical happens between 3.999 and 4.000. As I mentioned, these are mostly epidemiological studies and so only provide information about distributions over populations, not an inference for any specific individual.
Anecdotes from individuals who have been exposed to >4 levels of radon "their entire childhood" and are fine is NOT a generalizable fact. We all know people who chain smoke 2 packs a day into their 90s who die of natural causes and people who smoke 1/2 pack a day diagnosed with lung cancer at 45. These "N of 1" cases are meaningless when used for extrapolation.
Unlike smoking, radon is difficult to study. Smoking exposure data is much more amenable to proper data collection because the units are packs or cigarettes and exposure is direct inhalation and relatively consistent between individuals of a population (most people inhale and smoke entire cig).
Claiming radon is "all good" merely because it's naturally occurring is also baseless. I can't even begin to list the numerous "natural" molecules that are acutely toxic and/or lethal nevermind the even greater list that act as susceptibility factors. Of course this has been around and yes it comes from geological material, but the posed risk results from the radon being trapped in modern structures thus elevating levels beyond the negligible amounts humans were/are exposed to outside.
NO ONE in the thread claimed that radon is "all good because it is natural" and to try to twist around words shows the slimey tacts of the kind of dishonest rip-off artists that make their living taking $30 fans and charging $300 for them as some magic "radon abatement device".
The OP does not have a "modern structure" but a Victorian era home with an unfinished basement. They likely will not spend enough time in that basement for any elevated risk from the radon and the generally not very air tight construction of older homes will likely make radon level in the living areas and bedrooms a completely non-issue.
To claim that radon is "hard to study" is utter nonsense as even an unsophisticated search of Bing or Google will list out HUNDREDS of easy to verify studies by major universities and hospitals that document the relative risk factors that radon in known to be associated with WHEN FOUND IN HIGH CONCENTRATIONS such as in mines or areas with soil / mineral composition known to be at much higher than actionable levels.
The mechanisms of how the carcinogenic components of tobacco smoke cause lung cancer are well known -- the studies that initially showed the link to elevated risk of cancer have been supplemented with decades of additional work that have helped doctors pinpoint the ways that cancer spreads. These sorts of things are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT than environmental toxins like asbestos which have also been extremely well studied. Neither of these issues should be confused with radon which is poses a risk because of ionizing radiation. As such it is important for anyone to understand that there are many sources of such radiation that are quite common -- Radiation and Life - World Nuclear Association
Finally one does need to have a bit understanding of the differences between population based studies that are used to assess the relative risks of a substance and that is why when folks see that smokers have literally a 1000% greater risk of lung disease while even the most alarming numbers might show perhaps a 40% elevation of cancer in homes with the highest concentrations of radon it is clear that magnitude matters greatly.
NO ONE in the thread claimed that radon is "all good because it is natural" and to try to twist around words shows the slimey tacts of the kind of dishonest rip-off artists that make their living taking $30 fans and charging $300 for them as some magic "radon abatement device".
The OP does not have a "modern structure" but a Victorian era home with an unfinished basement. They likely will not spend enough time in that basement for any elevated risk from the radon and the generally not very air tight construction of older homes will likely make radon level in the living areas and bedrooms a completely non-issue.
To claim that radon is "hard to study" is utter nonsense as even an unsophisticated search of Bing or Google will list out HUNDREDS of easy to verify studies by major universities and hospitals that document the relative risk factors that radon in known to be associated with WHEN FOUND IN HIGH CONCENTRATIONS such as in mines or areas with soil / mineral composition known to be at much higher than actionable levels.
The mechanisms of how the carcinogenic components of tobacco smoke cause lung cancer are well known -- the studies that initially showed the link to elevated risk of cancer have been supplemented with decades of additional work that have helped doctors pinpoint the ways that cancer spreads. These sorts of things are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT than environmental toxins like asbestos which have also been extremely well studied. Neither of these issues should be confused with radon which is poses a risk because of ionizing radiation. As such it is important for anyone to understand that there are many sources of such radiation that are quite common -- Radiation and Life - World Nuclear Association
Finally one does need to have a bit understanding of the differences between population based studies that are used to assess the relative risks of a substance and that is why when folks see that smokers have literally a 1000% greater risk of lung disease while even the most alarming numbers might show perhaps a 40% elevation of cancer in homes with the highest concentrations of radon it is clear that magnitude matters greatly.
Calm down there fella. Posts 5,7,8,10,?? All contain statements I addressed. Have no idea why youre talking about $30 fans, $300 radon devices and slimey salesman. I'm not a salesman, nor an oncologist for that matter, but I am a genetic scientist who works in medical/pathology, including solid tumor genetics.
I'm well aware of smoking studies being based on extremely robust data, which is why I alluded to that much more succinctly. I would note that lack of evidence is NOT evidence. The fact that radon as a risk factor is not well understood is not to be taken as "radon levels are nothing to worry about. Believe me, I lived in house with high radon". That's just not how science works. You also cannot spew opinions predicated on false equivalencies as facts. The existence of other "natural radiation" at the radiation Whole Foods store not being implicated in cancer is not proof that the radiation in question also does not cause cancer. Making that connection requires studies.
I never once made the claim that smoking and radon have similar risks. The point is that when deciding on the cutoff value of 4, there were individuals with outcomes along a continuum, some with less exposure and lower than 4 will have associations with disease and any individual cannot know where they are on that spectrum. All that can be concluded is "higher levels and increased exposure imply a higher risk". Your spending time in radon basement and not having cancer now means nothing. The development of cancer is extremely complex and often happens over decades-especially so for lung cancers. You could have it in another 10 years, at which point radon would be suspected CONTRIBUTOR, especially so if non-smoker.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You were asking about a test done by someone else in 2015. That's why I asked why weren't you having your own done. Others said you should do your own test as well. It's up to all buyers to do their own due diligence. No one will do it for you.
Fearmongering vs lies...
