Granite Dells Area - Very High Radon Levels (schools, living)

[BriansPerspective]

Originally Posted by kdog

You're not the only person who has a problem with the correlations claimed in the study. RE: Iowa Radon Lung Cancer Study

Excellent research kdog. I particularly like the ending comment:

Overall, this [Iowa] study does not appear to demonstrate any statistically
significant association or dose response between residential radon and lung
cancer. The claim of a strong association is not shown in this study. My
opinion only.

Michael D. Brooks, CHP
CDC/ATSDR
Health Physicist

[motormaker]

I find the Iowa study interesting, but mis leading as how it pertains to AZ in in particular Granite Dells.

According to the EPA map, all of Iowa is in Zone 1 while all of AZ is in Zone 2.

[BriansPerspective]

Originally Posted by motormaker

I find the Iowa study interesting, but mis leading as how it pertains to AZ in in particular Granite Dells.

According to the EPA map, all of Iowa is in Zone 1 while all of AZ is in Zone 2.

Dellnec contends that the Granite Dells is a high-radon zone, presumably comparable to Iowa, which is also a high-radon zone.

[wretched wrench]

Originally Posted by BriansPerspective

2. I question the accuracy of the correlation since level of education (which couldn't possibly have anything to do with radon cancer IMHO) shows a correlation to radon causing cancer. According to Table 7, you have a 34% and 65% greater risk of getting cancer through radon if you have more than 12 years of education. That just does not make sense to me.

The correlation between education and radon-influenced cancer is not direct. It is indirect, but quite easy to follow.

The correlation between smoking and radon-influenced cancer is direct.

The correlation between level of education and smoking is direct.

Consequently, there is a lower level of radon-influenced cancer in a population with higher levels of education.

There is a possibility that a population with more education might be better informed re radon, and have a higher income allowing mitigation measures. Factor in a higher correlation of home ownership vs renting, as well. We can assume that homeowners are more likely than renters or landlords to take mitigation measures. Also, better educated people are often more on top of medical issues and the cancer is detected early enough to cause a lower death rate.

Also, the better educated drive newer cars, and the chemicals that leach out of new vinyl upholstery is proven to offset any radon-induced lung damage. ......OOPS, lapsing into pseudoscience..

[DellNec]

Originally Posted by wretched wrench

The correlation between education and radon-influenced cancer is not direct. It is indirect, but quite easy to follow.

The correlation between smoking and radon-influenced cancer is direct.

The correlation between level of education and smoking is direct.

Consequently, there is a lower level of radon-influenced cancer in a population with higher levels of education.

There is a possibility that a population with more education might be better informed re radon, and have a higher income allowing mitigation measures.

Well put!

Here is another study about radon in Granite Dells and Prescott:

http://www.azgs.az.gov/HomeOwners-OCR/HG7_radon.pdf

The doubters and scoffers are free to doubt and scoff all they want. That is what is called freedom of mind and choices. If they think radon gas is safe, so be it. Just like with smokers today, you can talk to some today who still think that smoking is 100% safe and that it is a gov't conspiracy to scare people to stop smoking.

There was show that interviewed people and they stated that they drove better when they were drunk. They honestly believed that, 100% in their mind, that if they were drunk, it gave them better driving skills. Some of the people believed that driving without their seatbelt was safer and they never buckle up while driving.

The point is that one can bring up all the scientific research and facts but in the end there will still be people who will not believe it. There are people out there who still think that Elvis is alive.

In the end, one does not have to be a nuclear physicists to understand the correlation between a decomposing radioactive element (uranium) and the gas it releases (radon) into the air.

[kdog]

I don't think anyone has said that radon is safe. But rather, it's been over-hyped and over-sold, just like this thread.

[BriansPerspective]

Originally Posted by DellNec

The doubters and scoffers are free to doubt and scoff all they want. That is what is called freedom of mind and choices. If they think radon gas is safe, so be it. Just like with smokers today, you can talk to some today who still think that smoking is 100% safe and that it is a gov't conspiracy to scare people to stop smoking.

There was show that interviewed people and they stated that they drove better when they were drunk. They honestly believed that, 100% in their mind, that if they were drunk, it gave them better driving skills. Some of the people believed that driving without their seatbelt was safer and they never buckle up while driving.

The point is that one can bring up all the scientific research and facts but in the end there will still be people who will not believe it. There are people out there who still think that Elvis is alive.

In the end, one does not have to be a nuclear physicists to understand the correlation between a decomposing radioactive element (uranium) and the gas it releases (radon) into the air.

I find it interesting that on the one hand you state that everybody is welcome to their views and choices and then on the other hand, you compare people who question the strength of the radon-cancer correlation to people who don't believe that smoking causes cancer, people who think they can drive better drunk, and people who think Elvis is still alive. If this is truly a forum to debate the science, then why not debate the science rather than try to belittle anyone who disagrees with the strength of your position?

I think there is legitimate science on both sides, therefore indicating that the radon-cancer debate is far from settled. Nobody is saying that there is zero risk. I merely contend that the risk and correlation is lower than stated by the EPA.

[BriansPerspective]

Originally Posted by DellNec

Well put!

Here is another study about radon in Granite Dells and Prescott:

http://www.azgs.az.gov/HomeOwners-OCR/HG7_radon.pdf

Recall that the EPA suggested maximum radon level is 4 pCi/L. According to your link:

For Arizona in general...

Tests with alpha track detectors, which
give a more meaningful long-term average, indicated
that only 1.6 percent of houses exceeded 4 pCi/L.

In the Prescott Dells...

In one survey, 51 homes built on the Dells
Granite were tested for radon under minimum air-ventilation
conditions (no open windows or running evaporative
coolers). Approximately 60 percent of the tested
homes had indoor radon levels above the EPA's 4 pCilL
guideline level.

That might sound alarming, but reread the quote. The tests were done with "minimum air-ventilation conditions". This is not typical. Typically, some form of air conditioning is running, either heat or air conditioning or open windows or evaporative coolers. Also, the test methodology was not listed, but the test was clearly not a long-term alpha track test, because the "minimum air-ventilation conditions" would not be able to be maintained for a long duration. As studies have shown, radon test results can vary wildly based on the conditions present during the test and short-term tests are not representative of long term radon levels (i.e., actual dosage).

[kdog]

Originally Posted by BriansPerspective

That might sound alarming, but reread the quote. The tests were done with "minimum air-ventilation conditions". This is not typical. Typically, some form of air conditioning is running, either heat or air conditioning or open windows or evaporative coolers. Also, the test methodology was not listed, but the test was clearly not a long-term alpha track test, because the "minimum air-ventilation conditions" would not be able to be maintained for a long duration. As studies have shown, radon test results can vary wildly based on the conditions present during the test and short-term tests are not representative of long term radon levels (i.e., actual dosage).

Great catches, Brian.

[DellNec]

Originally Posted by BriansPerspective

If this is truly a forum to debate the science, then why not debate the science rather than try to belittle anyone who disagrees with the strength of your position?

I think there is legitimate science on both sides, therefore indicating that the radon-cancer debate is far from settled. Nobody is saying that there is zero risk. I merely contend that the risk and correlation is lower than stated by the EPA.

As stated, 95% of the scientific community believes in the dangers of radon gas in residential homes. The remaining 5% do not believe in it but as with anything in life, there will always be those who doubt. That was the reasons for my examples of Elvis believers and anti-seatbelt people.

And then there are those who will disagree with facts simply because they dislike the person stating that facts. They will argue just for argument sake and they know who they are.

With radon gas and its lung cancer correlation, there are many variables at stake; ventilation, how long you stay inside the home, the air tightness of the home, do you sleep on the main level or the 2nd level, how often you open the winds, how well the foundation was sealed, etc.

In the end, no matter where you stand on the issue, having radon gas sitting underneath your home and permeating into your place of domicile CANNOT be a good selling point or a good thing for one's health. If you think it is then you should look for a home in a high radon area and buy that home and make sure you get the highest radon dosage you can get.