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.
Wow....long response....unfortunately my time is far more valuable to me than spending the amount of time it took you to organize the home made theories and speculation you deduce from your "research". In short, to trump any prior EPA studies all the nonsense you continue too offer ill just turn to the most reputable, world recognized health source, that has no dog in this fight and therefore only offers unbiased reports, studies and opinions......WHO....the World Health Organization. In a very "non scary" way their information shows that radon is a very real concern and not being being taken as the serious health threat it really is. Based upon their studies and findings they actually recommend the guideline be lowered from the EPA guideline of 4.0 pCi/L to 2.7 pCi/L which blows all your "independent scientific research" right out of the water along with your safe guideline of 20 pCi/L. Now....try to discredit WHO with revelations from your home research.
Obviously, your "research methods" need improvement.......but, on the bright side.....your a really funny guy.....have you considered a career as a stand up comedian ?
Wow....long response....unfortunately my time is far more valuable to me than spending the amount of time it took you to organize the home made theories and speculation you deduce from your "research". In short, to trump any prior EPA studies all the nonsense you continue too offer ill just turn to the most reputable, world recognized health source, that has no dog in this fight and therefore only offers unbiased reports, studies and opinions......WHO....the World Health Organization. In a very "non scary" way their information shows that radon is a very real concern and not being being taken as the serious health threat it really is. Based upon their studies and findings they actually recommend the guideline be lowered from the EPA guideline of 4.0 pCi/L to 2.7 pCi/L which blows all your "independent scientific research" right out of the water along with your safe guideline of 20 pCi/L. Now....try to discredit WHO with revelations from your home research.
Obviously, your "research methods" need improvement.......but, on the bright side.....your a really funny guy.....have you considered a career as a stand up comedian ?
You are of course quoting the absolute low end of the WHO recommendation. The actual WHO recommendation is that a level below 2.7 pCi/L is the "ideal". They then go on to say that based on local conditions they recommend a maximum action level not to exceed 8.0 pCi/L. So, the WHO recommendation is that action levels should be set between 2.7 and 8.0 pCi/L based on local conditions.
As for the independence of the WHO, you obviously don't how it works. The WHO's individual projects are funded by nations that have an interest in the study. The US EPA was the primary funder and originator of the project and representatives from the EPA headed the research studies and oversaw the editing of the manual. This fact is actually printed right at the beginning of their 100 page book on radon. After the WHO released the report the EPA then stated that they felt that even 2.7 pCi/L wasn't "safe" and felt that the US should target below 2.0 pCi/L, but there was no political will to do so. Isn't it amazing that the EPA can't even agree with the study that they funded? As for the WHO recommendation to date no one has directly adopted their standard. The EPA is now "recommending" action at 2.0 pCi/L, but has left the "standard" at 4.0 pCi/L. The European Union has retained a standard of 11 pCi/L for existing homes and 5 pCi/L for new construction. So much for the WHO's recommendations...
The WHO also says that if this level can't be reached because of country-specific conditions, the action level should not exceed 300 Bq, or about 8 pCi/L.
WHO gratefully acknowledges the US Environmental Protection Agency (USA), for providing the main funding for the WHO International Radon Project.
The other interesting tidbit here is that the EPA standards are just recommendations, not actual law. There is nothing illegal about having elevated radon levels. The guidelines are also only in place for elementary schools, daycares and residences. There is no national standard or recommendation for things like office buildings, yet people spend large parts of their days in such places. The fact that the EPA cannot gain enough traction to force action backed by legal consequence speaks to the true weakness of the risk.
As for my lengthy responses, I tend to post during the day while I am at work. I run a lot of complex reports and analyses and this gives me the time to participate on CD. So, unlike you, I am actually stuck at a computer all day when I post on CD. You will almost never see me posting at night or on the weekends because, well, I have better things to do. The sad part is that you actually have to take time out of your day to post. Why not enjoy retirement instead of arguing with people on the internet?
As for my research methods, I didn't do any of the actual research, I just read the reports. Most of what I have posted came from the EPA's own research in the BEIR studies. I'm just posting links to sources and information from ACTUAL scientists, not just regurgitating radon industry marketing material like some people.
Funny?...You mean, let me understand this, 'cause, ya know maybe it's me, I'm a little ****ed up maybe, but I'm funny how? I mean funny like I'm a clown? I amuse you? I make you laugh, I'm here to ****in' amuse you? What do you mean funny? Funny how? How am I funny?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Florida Gentleman
Impress me with your intelligence and explain how your independent scientific research lead you to this absurd conclusion ?
Average radon levels in outdoor air in the US ranges from 0.4 - 0.75 pCi/L. The average indoor radon level is 1.3 pCi/L. In some cases outdoor radon levels have been observed at 100+ pCi/L. Of course, outdoor radon levels are extremely variable and largely dependent on the weather, but outdoor levels can in fact be extremely high. If you stand on a granite mountain on a day with a calm breeze, the air around you can easily contain 50+pCi/L of radon.
If you need further proof, here is a paper from the American Association of Radon Scientists and Technologists reviewing peak levels of 40 pCi/L in outdoor air tests done in...drum roll please...Ocala, FL.
As for my lengthy responses, I tend to post during the day while I am at work.
Interesting.......wonder how your employer feels about paying you to post nonsense on City Data all day long ?
Funny?...You mean, let me understand this, 'cause, ya know maybe it's me, I'm a little ****ed up maybe, but I'm funny how? I mean funny like I'm a clown? I amuse you? I make you laugh, I'm here to ****in' amuse you? What do you mean funny? Funny how? How am I funny?
Actually.....all of those.....you are amusing like a clown.....obviously a little ****ed up maybe more than just a little ?
Average radon levels in outdoor air in the US ranges from 0.4 - 0.75 pCi/L. The average indoor radon level is 1.3 pCi/L. In some cases outdoor radon levels have been observed at 100+ pCi/L. Of course, outdoor radon levels are extremely variable and largely dependent on the weather, but outdoor levels can in fact be extremely high. If you stand on a granite mountain on a day with a calm breeze, the air around you can easily contain 50+pCi/L of radon.
If you need further proof, here is a paper from the American Association of Radon Scientists and Technologists reviewing peak levels of 40 pCi/L in outdoor air tests done in...drum roll please...Ocala, FL.
Actually you couldn't be more wrong. Radon gas is heavier than air and disperses in open air. That's why you always test the lowest livable area in a home under "closed house" conditions because accumulation won't occur in the upper floors but the lowest livable area such as the basement. Because radon does disperse in open air even with no breeze there would be no accumulation on top of a granite mountain because there is no p.ace for it to accumulate...just as opening your house window and the resulting ventilation eliminates indoor accumulation common sense should tell you that.....if you had any ?
You may know how to gather an assortment of varied facts but your lousy at interpreting them intelligently and probably better off just confining your work hours doing what your employer pays you to do instead of spreading nonsense and misinformation on City Data.
Actually you couldn't be more wrong. Radon gas is heavier than air and disperses in open air. That's why you always test the lowest livable area in a home under "closed house" conditions because accumulation won't occur in the upper floors but the lowest livable area such as the basement. Because radon does disperse in open air even with no breeze there would be no accumulation on top of a granite mountain because there is no p.ace for it to accumulate...
Outdoor radon levels were found to be rising during the evening and early morning hours to levels approaching 40 picoCilL.
Click that link. You're now telling me that the trade organization for the entire radon industry, the AARST (American Association of Radon Scientists and Technologists) is lieing? The article was written by the Florida Department of Health's Bureau on Radon and IAQ. They quite clearly state that they observed airborne concentrations of radon upwards of 40 pCi/L in outdoor air. They observed these readings in YOUR OWN TOWN of Ocala, FL. I guess they are wrong?
Here's the AARST's website, they are the leading trade organization for radon professionals:
You claim you're an expert, yet you are completely wrong on this matter as proven by the AARST.
Quote:
just as opening your house window and the resulting ventilation eliminates indoor accumulation common sense should tell you that.....if you had any ?
Now we're making progress. Why should I pay you $1,500 for a hunk of PVC and a fan, when I can just open a window or turn on a ceiling fan...
Quote:
You may know how to gather an assortment of varied facts but your lousy at interpreting them intelligently and probably better off just confining your work hours doing what your employer pays you to do instead of spreading nonsense and misinformation on City Data.
Is this your capitulation? Over this entire conversation you've poked fun at me, told me I was wrong, regurgitated some random information from radon pamphlets and insulted women. Never once did you provide any shred of evidence that counters or disproves anything I have said while I have routinely shredded every argument or statement you've made with well sourced facts.
Quote:
What's it like to always be wrong ?
You tell me. I'm always willing to admit when I'm wrong, but not until someone proves it and you're nowhere near proving me wrong.
Click that link. You're now telling me that the trade organization for the entire radon industry, the AARST (American Association of Radon Scientists and Technologists) is lieing? The article was written by the Florida Department of Health's Bureau on Radon and IAQ. They quite clearly state that they observed airborne concentrations of radon upwards of 40 pCi/L in outdoor air. They observed these readings in YOUR OWN TOWN of Ocala, FL. I guess they are wrong?
You tell me. I'm always willing to admit when I'm wrong, but not until someone proves it and you're nowhere near proving me wrong.
Again......good at gathering information but as far as understanding what you are posting....terrible. If you had taken the time to actually read the specifics of the report you supplied you would have learned that the information within was not your normal/typical radon post mitigation findings but represented an aberration in residential radon behavior. The mitigated home in the study was exhibiting conditions that normally don't exist in either an unmitigated or mitigated home or outside and the study was being performed to determine why.......which could be from a number of undetermined factors ranging from a fan installed upside down to radioactive material within the actual concrete slab or block work to some unknown source buried under the home prior to construction to unsealed hvac ductwork within the floor slab to partial influence from the gravitational pull of the moon at night...any or all of those might be factors or a combination. The bottom line of the study you posted indicated it was not normal behavior for radon and needed in depth study to determine what was causing this problem in one specific house. Next time you pick a study to provide as an example try to pick one that is representative of "typical or normal" rather than one unexplained incidence from 2002 !!!
Again......good at gathering information but as far as understanding what you are posting....terrible. If you had taken the time to actually read the specifics of the report you supplied you would have learned that the information within was not your normal/typical radon post mitigation findings but represented an aberration in residential radon behavior. The mitigated home in the study was exhibiting conditions that normally don't exist in either an unmitigated or mitigated home or outside and the study was being performed to determine why.......which could be from a number of undetermined factors ranging from a fan installed upside down to radioactive material within the actual concrete slab or block work to some unknown source buried under the home prior to construction to unsealed hvac ductwork within the floor slab to partial influence from the gravitational pull of the moon at night...any or all of those might be factors or a combination. The bottom line of the study you posted indicated it was not normal behavior for radon and needed in depth study to determine what was causing this problem in one specific house. Next time you pick a study to provide as an example try to pick one that is representative of "typical or normal" rather than one unexplained incidence from 2002 !!!
Sorry......but that makes you wrong again.
I said that outdoor radon levels could be quite high given the right circumstances.
You said that was impossible.
I posted an article where the AARST recorded OUTDOOR radon levels upwards of 40 pCi/L under certain conditions.
Hooked on phonics obviously didn't work for you.
BTW, the bottom line of the study was about planning to optimize when readings were done prior to installing mitigation systems to minimize the impact of temperature inversions that would cause radon concentrations to spike. Essentially, winter was shown to be the optimal time to take the readings and test the efficacy of mitigation systems as that is when the concentrations are highest do to temperature inversion among other factors. From the conclusions section...
[LEFT]
Quote:
The study supports previous findings that radon gas soil transport is influenced by many physical and environmental factors, soil depth, soil moisture, source concentration, etc. Upon reaching the ground surface, radon gas levels in ambient air are significantly affected by environmental and climatic conditions. High radium concentrations in the area, the relative shallow depths of the source material, the measured flux rates and the frequency of low level temperature inversions all contribute to the abnormally high ambient radon levels reported.
The study indicates post mitigation measurements done in the colder months, which represent worst case conditions, are more likely to indicate the effectiveness of the system throughout the year. Results obtained during colder months that are less than 4.0 pCi/L may indicate more accurately that the system will maintain radon levels below 4.0 pCi/L throughout the year, given the system is properly operating and maintained. Post mitigation measurements conducted during the warmer months may more accurately represent the annual average, but may not indicate how well the system maintains radon levels during the colder months.[/LEFT]
[LEFT]The study also indicates that outdoor levels rise significantly during temperature inversions and that the elevated ambient radon levels can increase the indoor radon levels.
So, when I said you can be exposed to high radon levels outdoors, you called BS and claimed that it's impossible. I provided the evidence that there are in fact high levels that have been measured outdoors and provided a study that proves it. You then said that the study doesn't say that, it says something else. I have provided the pertinent excerpts once again proving you wrong and anyone is welcome to actually read my link and see how wrong you are.[/LEFT]
I said that outdoor radon levels could be quite high given the right circumstances.
You said that was impossible.
Essentially, winter was shown to be the optimal time to take the readings and test the efficacy of mitigation systems as that is when the concentrations are highest do to temperature inversion among other factors. From the conclusions section...
So, when I said you can be exposed to high radon levels outdoors, you called BS and claimed that it's impossible. I provided the evidence that there are in fact high levels that have been measured outdoors and provided a study that proves it. You then said that the study doesn't say that, it says something else. I have provided the pertinent excerpts once again proving you wrong and anyone is welcome to actually read my link and see how wrong you are.[/LEFT]
[/font]
Regarding outdoor radon levels being quite high you suggested this was likely to happen on top of the highest granite mountain (now proven to be Absurd and Wrong) when what your offering now is a study on a single house exhibiting a problem that they haven't found a cause or solution for yet, however, that doesn't seem to stop you from offering it as evidence this is typical of worldwide radon behavior. What we do know is its not typical and more than likely due to an UN natural cause yet to be discovered.
Winter is definitely the best time to test but not due to temperature inversion factors. Mainly because in most areas the ground is frozen and the path for radon into the basement is easier rather than around and through the frozen exterior ground......and.....because people are more guarded in keeping their windows and doors closed to reduce heating costs.
Yes....you provided a single study from 2012 on a house with UN natural radon measurement conditions and are trying to pass it off as evidence that this is normal. It's not.....that's why they were studying it.
Again....your good at gathering useless, flawed information and then trying to alter what it really states into something that sounds like it may support your wacky independent research conclusions.
Regarding outdoor radon levels being quite high you suggested this was likely to happen on top of the highest granite mountain (now proven to be Absurd and Wrong) when what your offering now is a study on a single house exhibiting a problem that they haven't found a cause or solution for yet, however, that doesn't seem to stop you from offering it as evidence this is typical of worldwide radon behavior. What we do know is its not typical and more than likely due to an UN natural cause yet to be discovered.
Despite the fact that the entire thesis of the paper was that the measured levels were being caused by natural variances as stated in the paper several times. You can't just ignore the parts that don't support your stance. Their entire argument was that this is NOT unnatural or unusual. Just to further support my point, here is a map of Minnesota measuring AVERAGE outdoor radon levels collected by a university. There are some sections of Minnesota where the average outdoor level is 4.0+ pCi/L.
I thought, you couldn't get concentrations outdoors? Once again you are proven flat out wrong.
Quote:
Winter is definitely the best time to test but not due to temperature inversion factors. Mainly because in most areas the ground is frozen and the path for radon into the basement is easier rather than around and through the frozen exterior ground......and.....because people are more guarded in keeping their windows and doors closed to reduce heating costs.
Oh, so again the AARST is less of an authority than you. Again, they clearly stated that temperature inversion was the main driver and why you should test in the winter. The ground doesn't even freeze in most of the country. Only the upper northeast and upper midwest experience anything like consistently frozen ground. Anyone in or above USDA zone 5/6 is unlikely to experience anything but a brief ground freeze.
Yes....you provided a single study from 2012 on a house with UN natural radon measurement conditions and are trying to pass it off as evidence that this is normal. It's not.....that's why they were studying it.
Again, can radon accumulate OUTDOORS at levels above what is considered "actionable"? Yes or No.
Quote:
Again....your good at gathering useless, flawed information and then trying to alter what it really states into something that sounds like it may support your wacky independent research conclusions.
You're pretty good at not actually reading sources or being able to present any of your own that counter what I am saying. You are attacking my source, which is fine (though you are obviously relying on people who may be reading this exchange to not actually have read what I posted), but you are not actually posting any of your own or providing any actual proof about what you are saying. Why is that? Why is it that with 25 years of experience in this field you can't provide a single source to support what you are saying? Is it because I'm quoting the sources you would use and pointing out how they support my argument? Why is it that you latched solely onto the outdoor radon statement (which I feel I have more than proven, though my original hyperbole of 'bombarded' may have been too strong in regular cases) instead of anything else that I said?
There's getting trounced in a debate and then there's getting spanked and sent home to mama...you sir, are getting spanked.
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.
