How much radon is too much radon?

[Cosmic]

Originally Posted by FlyersFan

Quite a lengthy, rambing post........apparently from someone with absolutely no recognized credentials from any federal or state agency in this field giving them the expertise needed to speak intelligently and accurately regarding residential radon testing or mitigation ?

Ok, I have always wanted to ask this to a real expert with credentials.

If I went to a health spa in Europe. Was exposed to Radon with a level of 3600 for two weeks. Am I in serious danger if I sleep down there, stay there 24 / 7 for the entire two week period???

How long could I be exposed at that level before death should occur???? Can Radon ever be considered an acute source???

When I exit the spa, will I be contaminated with Alpha particles on my skin, hair, clothes and body. Will you be able to detect this contamination with a frisker??? What levels would you expect to find? Will I be required to be decontaminated before being allowed to return to the general public area of the Spa?

Would I exceed any legal limits for loose surface contamination??? If not, why should I be concerned???

I hope you will provide very detailed clarification to my questions. I've got so many more to ask you. It is rare to find such a acknowledged licensed certified expert available to us poor masses on the Web. Please answer the questions directly. You may get as technical as you like.

One more small question.

Are there any other air breathing life forms at risk due to Radon?

Is your dog in a basement with high levels of Radon at risk? Being of less body mass is the dog at more risk than a human child for the same level? I am very interested in this from what might happen to dogs in high levels of Radon. Will they die of lung cancer at some elevated rate??? What is the expected death rate if in good health, say a beagle with an expected life span on average of 10 years.

I've never found anyone who is extremely qualified to answer the questions. Just humor me and do so.

Thanks so much in advance.

[FlyersFan]

Originally Posted by Cosmic

Ok, I have always wanted to ask this to a real expert with credentials. Rather than asking some serious relevant questions it seems that you wish to ask silly, hypothetical questions that everyone realizes there are no specific answers for but I'll try to enlighten you.......

If I went to a health spa in Europe. Was exposed to Radon with a level of 3600 for two weeks. Am I in serious danger if I sleep down there, stay there 24 / 7 for the entire two week period??? Yes......16 pCi/L is equal to smoking one pack of cigarettes a day.....in an atmosphere of 3600 pCi/L that would be equal to smoking roughly 225 packs of cigarettes a day......I'm not sure thats possible but it sure sounds like you would be in danger.

How long could I be exposed at that level before death should occur???? We all know lung cancer from smoking can occur at a relatively young age.....since no one is capable of smoking 225 packs of cigarettes a day it would be impossible to determine how quickly you would contract lung cancer......additionally, since there has been no reading of radon in a residential home of 3600 what you ask is impossible to answer......however, one can safely assume the risk of lung cancer would be substantial.

Can Radon ever be considered an acute source???
Source of what.......the actual source of the radon.....or source of lung cancer ?

When I exit the spa, will I be contaminated with Alpha particles on my skin, hair, clothes and body. Will you be able to detect this contamination with a frisker??? What levels would you expect to find? Will I be required to be decontaminated before being allowed to return to the general public area of the Spa?
The danger from radiation from radon is when you breath it in......not the actual gas that surrounds you......so......no decontamination would be required.....no one "frisks" people for radon so there is no answer to that.
Would I exceed any legal limits for loose surface contamination??? If not, why should I be concerned???
Again.....this does not apply to radon in residential homes.
I hope you will provide very detailed clarification to my questions. I've got so many more to ask you. It is rare to find such a acknowledged licensed certified expert available to us poor masses on the Web. Please answer the questions directly. You may get as technical as you like.

One more small question.

Are there any other air breathing life forms at risk due to Radon?
Any life form with lungs. Also....radon can cause lung cancer which can result in death.....just because you contract lung cancer doesn't necessarily mean you will die but unless your a lung cancer enthusiast most people try to avoid lung cancer ?

Is your dog in a basement with high levels of Radon at risk? Yes Being of less body mass is the dog at more risk than a human child for the same level? I am very interested in this from what might happen to dogs in high levels of Radon. Will they die of lung cancer at some elevated rate??? What is the expected death rate if in good health, say a beagle with an expected life span on average of 10 years. In this situation its not the body mass........both dog and child have lungs......both are relatively short and therefore closer to the ground and a higher concentration of radon and at a greater risk of lung cancer than an adult who is much taller and in a different, higher "breathing zone".


I've never found anyone who is extremely qualified to answer the questions. Just humor me and do so. You realize that many of your questions are just too hypothetical and can't be answered specifically.......anyone with half a brain knows no one has ever done tests on dogs to determine their risk/rate of contracting lung cancer from exposure to elevated radon levels let alone specific levels of radon......one only assume your questions were not written in a serious manner to actually learn anything but to make them impossible to answer. Additionally......based upon some of the asinine questions you chose to ask I can only assume the health spa you were staying at was a mental health spa......and if they only kept you for two weeks then sadly they released you far too early.

Thanks so much in advance.

By the way.....I still didn't get your credentials or history of expertise/experience involving radon....do you actually have any ?

[Cosmic]

First the health spa is not a silly question. They actually exist, have for centuries. Many of the European ones have extremely high levels of Radon, into that 3600 area.

These expose folks for medical treatment in some times quite long stays on routine basis, many folks have the same treatment regimes over years of treatment. All under full doctor supervision. In fact these folks are some of the best people documented for Radon exposures in the World. Not only with complete history of their exposures but complete medical histories as well. None of what you claim happens. They have zero negative effects. Treatment provides relief for a large array of aliments, not only lung related, but arthritis, bursitis, joint pain, on and on. I did not make any of it up, you can just web search on the subject. You can go for a visit.

Your statement

"additionally, since there has been no reading of radon in a residential home of 3600 what you ask is impossible to answer......however, one can safely assume the risk of lung cancer would be substantial."

is actually put to the real test in the everyday World and nothing happens. How do you account for those facts?????

These clinics also exist in the USA. Levels are not as high, something up into the 2000's and above. Many of these patients spend up to weeks at a time. Nothing happens in a negative sense, there is zero reported side effects or any type of medical harm. No huge incidents of cancer. None of this is a fake, the folks are totally under a doctor supervised regime, both before and after. Tons of documentation on it.

Real on the ground experience at extremely high levels with zero harm. How can that square with your claims to the opposite?

The words "acute" have a special meaning in ALL types of radiation exposures, it also is used in many medical terminology the same way. It means, exposures were the harm happens immediately or quickly. Example, you walk pass a Cobalt-60 gamma source used for X-raying metal welds. Somebody left the shutter open by mistake, you are zapped with 10 REM immediate harm. That is an acute source.

A chronic source is one where the harm occurs and builds up over some time frame, can even be in the years. Like Strontium-90 in cow's milk. Soil is contaminated, it gets in the food chain. You get a tad with every glass of milk. Builds up in your body, stored in the bones.

What are you really claiming Radon is acute or chronic and why do so many in the Radon industry not understand the difference and continuously mix up the two potential methods of harm from the same source?

The question about loose surface contamination is appropriate. Many in the Radon industry continuously claim Radon contributes to loose surface contamination. They even go into a long math derived solution to predict levels and what their equilibrium values might be. That Alpha not breathed goes somewhere. They claim like normal loose surface contamination (say found in a nuclear plant) caused by dust particles in the air attracting the Alpha or any other radiation type particle and settling out like normal dust in the house, only this dust is radioactive.

Don't you know about the poster boy for the Radon Industry, Mr. Stanley Watras? They claim he set off monitor alarms because he was contaminated in his home via Radon and then went to work at a nuke plant and it was discovered. Just taking all the claims, why does this same thing not happen in the Spas? They have even higher levels than Mr. Watras house. Are not the skin, hair and clothes of the patients contaminated?? Could it not be detected?? You can't have it all difference ways, if it is true one place, must be true in the other.

Of course you understand loose surface contamination is a potential risk in every environment depending on the level achieved. You can injest it via the GI tract, it could be breathed, food can be contaminated. Anything placed in the mouth, water can be contaminated, the eyes could be affected, any break in the skin will be affected, the general skin condition can be affected, skin sores, etc. This can and does happen in areas with real loose surface contamination. On and on. They do frisk folks for loose surface contamination in nuclear environments and it is treated the same no matter the source. Some of this also happened back a ways while they were still testing nuclear weapons in the atmospehere. Fall out is a form of loose surface contamination. Lots of health effect from it, I have a few war stories about some of it. It was not risk free. Aren't you up on all the latest claims by your folks???

Back to the dogs. If they are in fact affected and undergo the same damage and potential cancers as humans then why can they not just do clinical trials using dogs to prove all the claims about Radon are true?

Could have lots of dead dogs quick, take them to the Spas, exposed forever to extremely high levels of Radon. Why mess around with miners that smoke and have 4 or 5 major cancer causing agents like arsenic, mercury, uranium etc to mess up the results of the so called study. Won't need any fancy paperwork exercise to prove the case. Every dog will be dead from cancer. Dog trials could be extremely controlled, few possible avenues for errors or rejection of the results.

With all the questions about the validity of claims for Radon causing harm is not it about time to do some real trials that can prove the issue one way or the other?

anyone with half a brain knows no one has ever done tests on dogs to determine their risk/rate of contracting lung cancer from exposure to elevated radon levels let alone specific levels of radon.....

Again not true, the tobacco companies did all sorts of trials using dogs for lung cancer. The details are not widely known, but some of those experiments did involve the use of Radon, both from the tobacco smoke and maybe additional Radon was added. In many, many cases in those dog trials, they claim again and again Radon was not harmful but actually helpful and protective against the damage from smoking. Why not just do some more dog trials with pure Radon and let the public know the results. Just for chuckles here the dogs did not do well in the smoking trials. They went down big time, just like humans do from smoking, in their case even worse, most their life spans were cut in less than half. It can be an interesting subject.

Could have slam dunk proof in the real World.

Of course there is another question.

Do you believe all individuals are affected equally by Radon? If the answer is no, which type of person would be more at risk, an aged man, a young woman, a child 2 years old?


The second question being, on average how long does it take for Radon to cause cancer as an average for the 20,000 cases claimed each year???

Will those 20,000 deaths correlate accurately to the states with higher Radon levels? How many of those deaths of the 20,000 occurred in Iowa? Where is the data for distribution of deaths in correlation to amounts of Radon concentrations across the country??? How does anyone discriminate between a smoking death, a death from second hand smoke or a death caused by Radon in persons dying of lung cancers???

If you did real dog trials these type questions would not have to be asked?? You just point to room after room of dead pups. Or maybe they all will be alive and enjoying theyselves, just like the rats did.

[FlyersFan]

Originally Posted by Cosmic

First the health spa is not a silly question. They actually exist, have for centuries. Many of the European ones have extremely high levels of Radon, into that 3600 area.
I believe there were some in New Mexico also.....mostly back in the 50s.....but then they believed smoking didn't hurt you either ?
These expose folks for medical treatment in some times quite long stays on routine basis, many folks have the same treatment regimes over years of treatment. All under full doctor supervision. In fact these folks are some of the best people documented for Radon exposures in the World. Not only with complete history of their exposures but complete medical histories as well. None of what you claim happens. They have zero negative effects. Treatment provides relief for a large array of aliments, not only lung related, but arthritis, bursitis, joint pain, on and on. I did not make any of it up, you can just web search on the subject. You can go for a visit.
The affects or radon exposure are over a lifetime......just because you spend two weeks in elevated levels doesn't mean you will see the affects of that the following week......cancer may show up years later.....just as people who smoked contract lung cancer years after they stopped smoking.

Your statement

"additionally, since there has been no reading of radon in a residential home of 3600 what you ask is impossible to answer......however, one can safely assume the risk of lung cancer would be substantial."

is actually put to the real test in the everyday World and nothing happens. How do you account for those facts?????

These clinics also exist in the USA. Levels are not as high, something up into the 2000's and above. Then why ask about the affects of radon expsoure at 3600 pCi/L when your aware theres no data on that ?Many of these patients spend up to weeks at a time. Nothing happens in a negative sense, there is zero reported side effects or any type of medical harm. No huge incidents of cancer. None of this is a fake, the folks are totally under a doctor supervised regime, both before and after. Tons of documentation on it.

Real on the ground experience at extremely high levels with zero harm. How can that square with your claims to the opposite?

The words "acute" have a special meaning in ALL types of radiation exposures, it also is used in many medical terminology the same way. It means, exposures were the harm happens immediately or quickly. Example, you walk pass a Cobalt-60 gamma source used for X-raying metal welds. Somebody left the shutter open by mistake, you are zapped with 10 REM immediate harm. That is an acute source.

A chronic source is one where the harm occurs and builds up over some time frame, can even be in the years. Like Strontium-90 in cow's milk. Soil is contaminated, it gets in the food chain. You get a tad with every glass of milk. Builds up in your body, stored in the bones.
Sorry.....not covered in concern for residential radon exposure. I'm confused as to why your conparing whats found in cows milk to whats found in the basement of a residential home when you know theres absolutely no comparrison unless you just like to hear yourself talk ?
What are you really claiming Radon is acute or chronic and why do so many in the Radon industry not understand the difference and continuously mix up the two potential methods of harm from the same source?

The question about loose surface contamination is appropriate. Many in the Radon industry continuously claim Radon contributes to loose surface contamination. They even go into a long math derived solution to predict levels and what their equilibrium values might be. That Alpha not breathed goes somewhere. They claim like normal loose surface contamination (say found in a nuclear plant) caused by dust particles in the air attracting the Alpha or any other radiation type particle and settling out like normal dust in the house, only this dust is radioactive.
The "contaminated" dust particles you refer to in regard to radon eventually attach themselves to surfaces in a room.......curtains, carpets, etc especially when the occupant runs a fan (illegal when testing).......this attachment is called "plating out".
Don't you know about the poster boy for the Radon Industry, Mr. Stanley Watras? They claim he set off monitor alarms because he was contaminated in his home via Radon and then went to work at a nuke plant and it was discovered. Just taking all the claims, why does this same thing not happen in the Spas? They have even higher levels than Mr. Watras house. Are not the skin, hair and clothes of the patients contaminated?? Could it not be detected?? You can't have it all difference ways, if it is true one place, must be true in the other.
Absolutely.....while I never met Mr. Watras I did mitigate a home for a gentlement in South Jersey who worked at the nearby nuclear plant and like Mr. Watras did set off the alarms after returning to work from a new home he purchased and moved into that had elevated radon levels.
Of course you understand loose surface contamination is a potential risk in every environment depending on the level achieved. You can injest it via the GI tract, it could be breathed, food can be contaminated. Anything placed in the mouth, water can be contaminated, the eyes could be affected, any break in the skin will be affected, the general skin condition can be affected, skin sores, etc. This can and does happen in areas with real loose surface contamination. On and on. They do frisk folks for loose surface contamination in nuclear environments and it is treated the same no matter the source. Some of this also happened back a ways while they were still testing nuclear weapons in the atmospehere. Fall out is a form of loose surface contamination. Lots of health effect from it, I have a few war stories about some of it. It was not risk free. Aren't you up on all the latest claims by your folks???

Back to the dogs. If they are in fact affected and undergo the same damage and potential cancers as humans then why can they not just do clinical trials using dogs to prove all the claims about Radon are true?

Could have lots of dead dogs quick, take them to the Spas, exposed forever to extremely high levels of Radon. Why mess around with miners that smoke and have 4 or 5 major cancer causing agents like arsenic, mercury, uranium etc to mess up the results of the so called study. Won't need any fancy paperwork exercise to prove the case. Every dog will be dead from cancer. Dog trials could be extremely controlled, few possible avenues for errors or rejection of the results.

With all the questions about the validity of claims for Radon causing harm is not it about time to do some real trials that can prove the issue one way or the other?

anyone with half a brain knows no one has ever done tests on dogs to determine their risk/rate of contracting lung cancer from exposure to elevated radon levels let alone specific levels of radon.....

Again not true, the tobacco companies did all sorts of trials using dogs for lung cancer. The details are not widely known, If its not widely known why would you refer to it ? but some of those experiments did involve the use of Radon, both from the tobacco smoke and maybe additional Radon was added. In many, many cases in those dog trials, they Who is this "they" you refer to ? claim again and again Radon was not harmful but actually helpful and protective against the damage from smoking. Why not just do some more dog trials with pure Radon and let the public know the results. Why would you ask me.....clearly I don't tell the EPA what to do ? Just for chuckles here the dogs did not do well in the smoking trials. They went down big time, just like humans do from smoking, in their case even worse, most their life spans were cut in less than half. It can be an interesting subject.

Could have slam dunk proof in the real World.

Of course there is another question.

Do you believe all individuals are affected equally by Radon? If the answer is no, which type of person would be more at risk, an aged man, a young woman, a child 2 years old?
Clearly not.......a child would be at greater risk due to the rate of cell growth/change of a two year old....

The second question being, on average how long does it take for Radon to cause cancer as an average for the 20,000 cases claimed each year???
Again.....just another question where you know there is NO answer......you could ask the same question about smokers....no one knows exactly how long it takes or exactly how many will contract lung cancer......all we know its that it does cause lung cancer in SOME.....not all......if you wish to doubt the evidence thats fine.

Will those 20,000 deaths correlate accurately to the states with higher Radon levels? How many of those deaths of the 20,000 occurred in Iowa? Where is the data for distribution of deaths in correlation to amounts of Radon concentrations across the country??? How does anyone discriminate between a smoking death, a death from second hand smoke or a death caused by Radon in persons dying of lung cancers???

If you did real dog trials these type questions would not have to be asked?? You just point to room after room of dead pups. Or maybe they all will be alive and enjoying theyselves, just like the rats did.

You seem to be a faily intelligent/articulate individual with a working knowledge of radiation but instead of asking to learn you propose absurd questions that you know have no answers......thats not a sign of an intelligent person.

For the last time I will ask what federal/state recognized qualifications/certifications you have regarding radon health concerns, radon testing and mitigation in a residential setting......if you can't answer this one is only left to assume based upon your lengthy, rambling posts that your just an unemployed crackpot who has nothing better to do than propose silly hypothetical questions seeking answers he already knows doesn't exist.

[Ultrarunner]

Closed for Review...

UltraR