The radon business is a scam. (expensive, building, residential, home)
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.
If you still don't realize that radon is a scam, try debating this REAL scientist. This guy is a genius and I've read quite a bit of his work. If you try and debate him, you're wasting your time - trust me.
I was recently in the process of talking to mitigation companies and was reading books on the health scares of radon because, well, I was scared. I decided to read through many forums like this - which I really enjoy City Data..it seems the most "open" source natured.
Anyway, I noticed a few posts by Mr. Connell. He readily debates radon and the studies that suggest it caused all these cancers. He proves ALL - not just some - ALL of the studies to be duds, with the EPA's own documentation - cites everything. You can't argue with that - You can't prove a negative. Good luck...Read!
This blog has mixed real problems with potential scams, and it only serves to degrade the real problems. Global warming is a real problem, and we may be past the point of no return. Excessive EMF is a real problem, by itself or more realistically as a co-promoter. Radon is another story.
There are two schools of thought on radon. One school states there is no safe dose of radon, based mainly on linear extrapolation of uranium miner experiences at high radon exposures. The other school (the OP) claims no demonstrated adverse effects at low radon exposures, or perhaps even a beneficial effect much like a vaccine. The study I find most convincing is the Worcester, MA, study posted by the OP. They found a modest beneficial effect in the approximate region of 2-6 pCi/l, then adverse effects as concentration increased above 7-8. .
Major mitigation like sub-slab depressurization might make sense where the long-term weighted concentrations were greater than 7-8 pCi/l. However, there are simple mitigation steps that can be taken if readings are in the 4-8 pCi/l range, and it is a complete mystery to me why these steps are not tried initially.
First, seal the cracks in the basement floor, at the floor-wall junction, and on any sumps. Cavallo et al (1996) reduced the basement radon concentration by a factor of four doing floor sealing and sump sealing alone. Second, open the basement windows. In the same study, Cavallo et al reduced the radon concentration further by a factor of six by opening windows on adjacent walls in the basement. Third, use ceiling fans, perhaps coupled with positive ion-generators. This forces the charged daughter products to 'plate-out' on the solid surfaces. These measures are common sense. They move in the direction of simulating the natural outdoor environment, not the artificial indoor closed-box environment of processed air.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Autumn31
No...it just states that if the two parties can't come to an agreement on what to do that we the buyers can back out. My realtor wants to have them put in writing that we will schedule the C.C.O next week if they agree to pay to mitigate if the test comes back high....but how do we know if it was tampered with? Do I pay to have someone come back again for a 3rd retest and put a tamper resistant seal on the basement door? Read somewhere that 30% of all radon tests are tampered with. How can people be so dishonest about something like this...just frustrated.
Unless you run the test yourself, you cannot trust it. It has been shown in the research literature that ceiling fans can reduce radon concentration by 50%, that opening basement windows can reduce radon concentration drastically, and that combining ceiling fans with positive ion generators can reduce radon concentrations by 90%. So, if the tester leaves the detector in the room for 48 hours, and does not check it in the interim, any of these techniques could have been used to reduce the levels.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chet everett
Probably not so much for any technical information, but the depictions of radon mitigation in popular culture reflects the widely held views.
Based on interactions both casual and in professional settings too many mitigation specialists trade on fears and the vulnerability of buyers & sellers to accept what is presented to them in a very narrow window around the stressful time of home selling/buying.
In my experience this applies to SOME general home inspectors as well, but the ones that seem more successful tend to be calmer, document their finding extensively and provide a balanced summary of both the strengths and shortcomings of property. This tends to make them more trustworthy and believable.
I suppose there are a handful of really diligent low key radon inspectors, but since the time that I came in contact with radon testing in homes around the Chicago suburbs where the predicated average is only of moderate potential, the folks I have encountered have been as subtle as brick to the forehead. My reaction is usually what would expect in such a situation...
You raise a good point. There may or may not be need for radon mitigation, but the type of mitigation required may be quite different, especially for different radon concentration levels. However, almost all the services on the Web, or popular discussions on the Web, focus on the high-priced approach of sub-slab depressurization. This approach requires at least one penetration in the slab, a pipe that threads up the house and exits the roof, and a continuously running fan.
Even a brief perusal of the research literature shows many simple approaches exist, but one would never know this reading only the Web advertisements for mitigation. Opening basement windows, sealing basement sumps and floor cracks, and using ceiling fans have been shown to have substantial effects on reducing radon concentration. They have the added bonus of eliminating other potentially harmful gases as well. If there is a scam in the radon mitigation industry, it is in not making the public aware of the low cost approaches, and only hawking the high-cost ones.
Even a brief perusal of the research literature shows many simple approaches exist, but one would never know this reading only the Web advertisements for mitigation. Opening basement windows, sealing basement sumps and floor cracks, and using ceiling fans have been shown to have substantial effects on reducing radon concentration. They have the added bonus of eliminating other potentially harmful gases as well. If there is a scam in the radon mitigation industry, it is in not making the public aware of the low cost approaches, and only hawking the high-cost ones.[/quote]
You have made quite a contradiction here. One one hand you said that it only took "a brief perusal of the research literature" to find way to reduce radon levels. Then you go on to say that the scam is "in not making the public aware of the low cost approaches, and only hawking the high-cost ones.".
While there are a lot of ways to reduce radon levels in a house, the professionally installed (EPA approved) system is one that runs 24/7 and really needs nothing from a home owner except making sure it is still operating properly.
While opening windows, running fans and caulking the daylights out of a basement might reduce the levels in some homes (to below the action level), they just won't do enough for homes with extremely high levels.
A home with levels below 10 might do well with your methods. But a home that has levels in the hundreds needs a professional system. In act, a home with levels in the hundreds will probably need several penetration points, and possibly more than one fan.
You should also consider the EPA's position. If they told you to caulk the basement, open a few windows and run your ceiling fans and you will be fine, they would be exposing themselves to a huge liability. They know that a professionally installed mitigation system will work.
Anyway, I noticed a few posts by Mr. Connell. He readily debates radon and the studies that suggest it caused all these cancers. He proves ALL - not just some - ALL of the studies to be duds, with the EPA's own documentation - cites everything. You can't argue with that - You can't prove a negative. Good luck...Read!
Wow . . . just, wow. I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry. The author takes advantage of the fact that many people do not understand how to interpret studies: that is true, but the author then goes on to do some outstandingly poor interpretation himself. He is, in fact, doing what he is accusing other people of doing. The author makes some good points about issues with assumptions in study interpretation. He appears to be making the argument that because studies can be flawed, his opinion must therefore be right. Uh, no.
As a graduate student of epidemiology, I'm actually fairly offended. While this person claims to work in the field of epidemiology, he fails demonstrate understanding of basic epidemiological concepts, and thus applies them incorrectly. I would go so far as to say he is perpetrating fraud: he claims to be correcting incorrect assumptions about studies, but the analysis he provides illustrates a total lack of knowledge about the things is claims to be "explaining" to the laymen. (His definition of meta-analysis is certainly criminal.) He might be a very good industrial hygienist, but that doesn't mean he knows anything about epidemiology. To me, it looks like his epidemiological "schooling" was obtained through the internet. He knows a lot of neat words, he appears to know about some study types, but his explanations of the concepts he is arguing are either partially or totally incorrect, even though most of them are fairly basic: the author is either an absolute dunce, or has zero epi training. (Or both.)
Regardless, his arguments aren't valid in this discussion because they are based on definitions that are incorrect and assumptions that are flat our wrong. Not to mention the fact that his selection of studies for review is fairly bad, fairly small, and definitely not applicable to the general body of study, which is the application he is attempting to make. He appears to have picked studies he feels he can argue against (though he has done so fairly poorly). A REAL epidemiologist would have looked at the available body of prospective cohort studies on radon and lung cancer as well (or instead). Based on his definition of selection bias I rather think he may not know what a prospective cohort is. (A prospective cohort study has no selection bias by definition, and thus is considered the "gold standard" of study design. The author's claim that all studies are subject to selection bias, to me, illustrates that he doesn't even know how to gauge the value of study design.) An argument that ignores the best studies on the subject and sticks to case-control studies when better study designs exist would be a fairly pamby-pamby argument to begin with, even if it was done well.
If you want to bring a lit review into this discussion, great, but this ain't it.
Even a brief perusal of the research literature shows many simple approaches exist, but one would never know this reading only the Web advertisements for mitigation. Opening basement windows, sealing basement sumps and floor cracks, and using ceiling fans have been shown to have substantial effects on reducing radon concentration. They have the added bonus of eliminating other potentially harmful gases as well. If there is a scam in the radon mitigation industry, it is in not making the public aware of the low cost approaches, and only hawking the high-cost ones.
You have made quite a contradiction here. One one hand you said that it only took "a brief perusal of the research literature" to find way to reduce radon levels. Then you go on to say that the scam is "in not making the public aware of the low cost approaches, and only hawking the high-cost ones.".
While there are a lot of ways to reduce radon levels in a house, the professionally installed (EPA approved) system is one that runs 24/7 and really needs nothing from a home owner except making sure it is still operating properly.
While opening windows, running fans and caulking the daylights out of a basement might reduce the levels in some homes (to below the action level), they just won't do enough for homes with extremely high levels.
A home with levels below 10 might do well with your methods. But a home that has levels in the hundreds needs a professional system. In act, a home with levels in the hundreds will probably need several penetration points, and possibly more than one fan.
You should also consider the EPA's position. If they told you to caulk the basement, open a few windows and run your ceiling fans and you will be fine, they would be exposing themselves to a huge liability. They know that a professionally installed mitigation system will work.[/quote]
I stated quite clearly that above levels of 7-8, sub-slab depressurization was a good approach. But I believe the methods I outlined might be adequate for readings below that range.
A very good analysis of the problem, assuming any amount of radon exposure is bad, was published in the British Medical Journal in 2009 by three Oxford Professors (Alistair Gray et al). I quote from their key result:
"For lifelong non-smokers living in a home with long term
average radon concentration equal to the UK mean of
21 Bq/m, the cumulative risk of death from lung
cancer by age 75 is 0.42% (fig 1). For a hypothetical radon
concentration of zero the value would reduce
slightly to 0.41%, and for homes with concentrations of
200 Bq/m3 it would increase to 0.53% and further to
0.66% and 0.92% for lifelong non-smokers living in
homes with concentrations of 400 Bq/m3 and 800 Bq/m3, respectively."
The conversion is 4.0 pCi/l (the EPA limit) equals 148 Bq/m3.
In plain English, this conclusion states that, if you are a non-smoker, your non-radon non-smoking risk of death from lung cancer by age 75 is 4 in a thousand. If you are a non-smoker, and have been exposed to radon at the EPA limit of 4.0 pCi/l for decades, your risk of death from lung cancer by age 75 is 5 in a thousand. Thus, going from no radon exposure to the EPA exposure limit increases your risk by 1 in a thousand! For non-smokers, mild radon exposure is a non-existant problem. For smokers, there is a radon-smoking synergy and the radon risk is more serious; both stopping smoking and radon mitigation would be the prudent choice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jillaceae
Wow . . . just, wow. I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry. The author takes advantage of the fact that many people do not understand how to interpret studies: that is true, but the author then goes on to do some outstandingly poor interpretation himself. He is, in fact, doing what he is accusing other people of doing. The author makes some good points about issues with assumptions in study interpretation. He appears to be making the argument that because studies can be flawed, his opinion must therefore be right. Uh, no.
As a graduate student of epidemiology, I'm actually fairly offended. While this person claims to work in the field of epidemiology, he fails demonstrate understanding of basic epidemiological concepts, and thus applies them incorrectly. I would go so far as to say he is perpetrating fraud: he claims to be correcting incorrect assumptions about studies, but the analysis he provides illustrates a total lack of knowledge about the things is claims to be "explaining" to the laymen. (His definition of meta-analysis is certainly criminal.) He might be a very good industrial hygienist, but that doesn't mean he knows anything about epidemiology. To me, it looks like his epidemiological "schooling" was obtained through the internet. He knows a lot of neat words, he appears to know about some study types, but his explanations of the concepts he is arguing are either partially or totally incorrect, even though most of them are fairly basic: the author is either an absolute dunce, or has zero epi training. (Or both.)
Regardless, his arguments aren't valid in this discussion because they are based on definitions that are incorrect and assumptions that are flat our wrong. Not to mention the fact that his selection of studies for review is fairly bad, fairly small, and definitely not applicable to the general body of study, which is the application he is attempting to make. He appears to have picked studies he feels he can argue against (though he has done so fairly poorly). A REAL epidemiologist would have looked at the available body of prospective cohort studies on radon and lung cancer as well (or instead). Based on his definition of selection bias I rather think he may not know what a prospective cohort is. (A prospective cohort study has no selection bias by definition, and thus is considered the "gold standard" of study design. The author's claim that all studies are subject to selection bias, to me, illustrates that he doesn't even know how to gauge the value of study design.) An argument that ignores the best studies on the subject and sticks to case-control studies when better study designs exist would be a fairly pamby-pamby argument to begin with, even if it was done well.
If you want to bring a lit review into this discussion, great, but this ain't it.
You have presented four paragraphs of generalized arm-waving, and have shed more heat than light on the topic. Here is the status.
The non-mainstream school of thought, as represented by the Worcester, MA, study published in 2008, demonstrates a hormetic (beneficial) effect of radon exposure in the range about 2-7 pCi/l. Think of it like a vaccine.
The mainstream school of thought, as represented mainly by linear extrapolation of high radon exposure miner studies to low exposure residential conditions, and also by direct residential measurements like the Iowa study, assumes that any level of radon exposure is harmful. The Iowa study is probably the best of the litter, but it normalizes on much of the (potentially) hormetic region, and therefore is not able to demonstrate hormesis, if indeed it is present. By this normalization, it is constrained to demonstrate increasing cancer incidence with increasing radon exposure throughout the test range.
The analysis by the Oxford Professors that I mention in a previous post draws from the mainstream studies. It shows that, for non-smokers, going from zero radon exposure for many decades to the EPA-limit exposure for many decades increases the risk from lung cancer death at age 75 by 1 in a thousand. And this is a worst case effect compared to the Worcester study that demonstrated hormesis. For all practical purposes, for non-smokers exposure at the EPA-limit is a non-existant problem. For smokers, that is another story, but they have far more to worry about from the smoking than from the radon.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyersFan
With long term esposure radon can cause lung cancer and is the second leading cause of lung cancer behind smoking. Those that view radon as a "scam" are either poorly informed or just don't wish to accept the EPA published facts. Most of the civilized nations on this earth have a radon program that they enforce......it would seem hard to believe that a radon "scam" would extend worldwide ?
I would be careful about accepting EPA pronouncements as scripture. The EPA is first and foremost a political body, subject to political and lobbyist influence. Some of their regulations may represent the best science, and other regulations (or recommendations) may represent unsettled science. From what I have read in the research literature, the impact of radon is not settled science. There may be hormesis operating at low exposures, and there may be co-promotional effects operating at all exposure levels.
My approach is to use the 'precautionary principle'. For readings between 3-7, I would do sealing, caulking, natural ventilation, and ceiling fans. That would help reduce radon, and eliminate other potential co-promoters. Above 8, I would consider sub-slab depressurization.
A commenter at City-Data appears to confirm what has always been my suspicion: the "radon" threat is about as real as global warming. Which is to say, you’ve got a better chance of hitting a 565-foot home run in Yankee Stadium with a six iron than being harmed by radon?
I just got a contract on my house. Buyer had a home inspection done. Inspector owns a radon mitigation business on the side. Radon test comes up positive. I'm told I need to get it fixed. Buyer's realtor who recommended inspector says she trusts him fully to do treatment.
I say no way. I will not reward someone who benefits by finding a problem. That's why I never let the termite company that found the "problem" to be the one that fixes it.
So I haven't decided what to do, so in the meantime I did some reading. And after about six hours, I came to the inescapable realization...
Radon at low concentrations may or may not be real; the science is not settled. Global warming, on the other hand, is very real. According to James Lovelock, perhaps the most independent and credible of all the global warming researchers, we are past the point of no return, and will have to learn to adapt to a much harsher world. He estimates perhaps twenty percent of the world's population will survive, and I believe he is being generous. If the models included better representation of the ice sheet mechanics and dynamics, they would show catastrophe much closer in time. We are witnessing the greatest genocide in the history of mankind, and those who contribute to it have some degree of responsibility. Unfortunately, the price will be paid by our progeny; a grim future awaits them.
So I haven't decided what to do, so in the meantime I did some reading. And after about six hours, I came to the inescapable realization that RESIDENTIAL RADON DANGER IS A HOAX.
It's put out by the same folks who are selling us man-made global warming; WHO, the EPA, the NIH, all of whose best interests it serves to create crises so they can get money to keep "studying" the problem...
So much for any scientific element to your argument. You can find almost any answer you want online if you only search for keywords that suit your premise! Objectivity takes a lot more thinking, and people of the GOP/Libertarian persuasion tend to choose subjectivity, aka ideology.
To sum up the denier mindset: "Anything that costs me money, questions my religion or generally cramps my style is part of the New World Order conspiracy to raise my taxes and take away my God-given rights."
Radon at low concentrations may or may not be real; the science is not settled. Global warming, on the other hand, is very real. According to James Lovelock, perhaps the most independent and credible of all the global warming researchers, we are past the point of no return, and will have to learn to adapt to a much harsher world. He estimates perhaps twenty percent of the world's population will survive, and I believe he is being generous. If the models included better representation of the ice sheet mechanics and dynamics, they would show catastrophe much closer in time. We are witnessing the greatest genocide in the history of mankind, and those who contribute to it have some degree of responsibility. Unfortunately, the price will be paid by our progeny; a grim future awaits them.
It seems like settled science to me, but the risk is higher for people with compromised lung tissue, i.e. smokers, who are probably also inclined to deny the effects of many toxins. I imagine fewer smokers care about radon testing than non-smokers, which is double irony.
5. How did scientists discover that radon plays a role in the development of lung cancer?
Radon was identified as a health problem when scientists noted that underground uranium miners who were exposed to it died of lung cancer at high rates. The results of miner studies have been confirmed by experimental animal studies, which show higher rates of lung tumors among rodents exposed to high radon levels.
There never has been a study that shows radon in modest amounts causes lung problems. Think of the number of houses that are built above dirt crawl spaces. Is there any study that shows people living in those houses have a higher rate of lung cancer? Reliable sources show that radon levels in eastern Wisconsin are generally higher than in western Wisconsin. Has there ever been a study showing that residence of eastern Wisconsin have more lung problems than those in the Western part of the state? The radon problem is a hoax which is kept alive by some statements in a EPA report.
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're no scientist
