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.
Why is everyone arguing? Some feel that radon isn't that dangerous, some do. But at the end of the day, isn't everyone in agreement that if the level is above 4.0, the buyer should get a remediation done, and that if it brings the level down close to 0 it's a non-issue?
Btw, I'm curious as to what people consider a "high" level, over 10.0? The home we're looking to purchase came in at 6.1, and then at 5.8 during a re-test. I figure that's not considered that high, despite being over 4.0, but we're getting a remediation done anyway.
Why is everyone arguing? Some feel that radon isn't that dangerous, some do. But at the end of the day, isn't everyone in agreement that if the level is above 4.0, the buyer should get a remediation done, and that if it brings the level down close to 0 it's a non-issue?
Btw, I'm curious as to what people consider a "high" level, over 10.0? The home we're looking to purchase came in at 6.1, and then at 5.8 during a re-test. I figure that's not considered that high, despite being over 4.0, but we're getting a remediation done anyway.
It would be nice if all demonstrated some common sense by agreeing that radon is a real concerning even if they may disagrees hat the number is but there always seems to be that fringe element that can't accept the obvious and feel that every step/precaution taken by the government toward safety is a giant conspiracy against the American people to take away rights or to perpetrate massive financial hoaxes for private industry profits.
It would be nice if all demonstrated some common sense by agreeing that radon is a real concerning even if they may disagrees hat the number is but there always seems to be that fringe element that can't accept the obvious and feel that every step/precaution taken by the government toward safety is a giant conspiracy against the American people to take away rights or to perpetrate massive financial hoaxes for private industry profits.
Common sense is agreeing that its logical to mitigate against elevated levels and ensure that you are under the recommended limits. Everyone has so far agreed that this is the case and a logical precaution.
The argument enters when we begin talking about the degree of the threat radon poses to public health. You carefully dance around the numbers, but I think it has been proven (with links to the EPA no less) that the overall risk of contracting radon induced lung cancer for a non-smoker is incredibly small when one truly understands what the numbers mean. Therefore, radon is not something to panic about or be incredibly concerned over in the general scope of things. Some people believe that there is an imminent public health threat to the point they won't buy homes with "elevated radon levels", these people are the ones who are misinformed.
If you are buying a house, have it tested. If the levels are elevated, have it mitigated. If you live in a house for a long time with a mitigation system, it may make sense to have the system checked every so often and/or repeat a test to make sure it is still working correctly. I am not sure what the standard is, but perhaps every 10 years or so would make sense; you're the expert you tell us.
Any "degree of threat" has consequences. Scientists and governments don't establish guidelines on whim but fact.....choosing to ignore established guidelines and make your own up makes no sense at all and usually lead to bad endings.
Any "degree of threat" has consequences. Scientists and governments don't establish guidelines on whim but fact.....choosing to ignore established guidelines and make your own up makes no sense at all and usually lead to bad endings.
Agreed, but understanding what those guidelines actually mean is important in terms of determining how much of a threat it is and how much worry to assign to it. There is a "degree of threat" for many horrible things that are possible, it just matters how probable they are. Radon is pretty low on the probable chain for a non-smoker who doesn't spend 18 hours a day over a 70 year period in a non-mitigated basement.
A little anecdotal tale to tone down the food fight for the OP.
Our experience was that after just completing construction of a nice custom house, it tested at about 20pCi/l, first with a charcoal mail-in, then the more sophisticated meter. We were pretty upset. After about $800 and a day's mitigation work, the basement tested below 1pCi/l. We recently retested it with the simple charcoal test at just above 1pCi/l. We are comfortable and pleased we did it.
Did we think our health was threatened? Don't know, but since we exercise in the basement and have some other health issues, we didn't think twice. In this case it was a no-brainer decision.
If the measured presence was even near 4pCi/l, we might have made the same decision...but we found when we sold the previous house that it was about 4 in the basement. We lived there 15 years. Our house before that one was probably worse since it had a massive exposed stone ledge in the basement. It was never tested. Radon wasn't 'an issue' then. We also lived there 15 years. As another aside, we both smoked for 20+ years before quitting (one of the best things we ever did...).
The most annoying things, not mentioned much in the previous technical/health arguments, are practical:
The big plastic pipe is unsightly. We did the best we could to 'hide' it but it isn't invisible.
It runs 24/7/265, and so generates low level fan noise. In a quiet setting it's audible, especially outside near it.
It costs a few dollars a month in electricity. I ours is 75 watts. Size varies, but this is pretty typical. There are some articles on the web about using low wattage fans etc so if you are contemplating a system it may be worth looking into this and discussing with the vendors you talk to as opinions vary.
As anyone who has looked into radon knows, there is A LOT of stuff on the web about this to sift through.
(Although anecdotal) I'm curious if many folks know of non-smokers or smoking family members (or asbestos workers..) who contracted lung cancer attributed to radon.
Agreed, but understanding what those guidelines actually mean is important in terms of determining how much of a threat it is and how much worry to assign to it. There is a "degree of threat" for many horrible things that are possible, it just matters how probable they are. Radon is pretty low on the probable chain for a non-smoker who doesn't spend 18 hours a day over a 70 year period in a non-mitigated basement.
Why is there always a "BUT"......the EPA guidelines that the US and most of the civilized world follows are very clear. They define what's acceptable and what's not with no BUTS involved under any circumstances.... you and only you wish to muddy the water on a guideline written in black and white numbers. Under 4.0pCi/L is ok......anything over that isn't....no BUTS.
A little anecdotal tale to tone down the food fight for the OP.
if you are contemplating a system it may be worth looking into this and discussing with the vendors you talk to as opinions vary.
(Although anecdotal) I'm curious if many folks know of non-smokers or smoking family members (or asbestos workers..) who contracted lung cancer attributed to radon.
I was a NJ DEP radon mitigation specialist for over 20 years and would weight in with some insight on your post.
First.....$800 for a legal radon system in New Jersey is extremely low because of oversight and DEP fees which makes me wonder if your mitigator was DEP licensed. Most systems today start in the neighborhood of $1300. If your mitigator didn't get the required township permits, building and electrical, and you didn't see a separate electrician on the job then he probably didn't report the work to the township and the DEP as required.
Second.....I mitigated 1000s of houses and there were adults living in those homes, some of which had lung cancer, but I have no information on how many were smokers that may have contributed. That being said I also mitigated some homes were mitigated and young children were suffering from lung cancer and the parents were not smokers. Most are not aware that because of growth, cell change and closer proximity to the floor and greater radon concentration that children are more at risk than children. Some will label this as inadequate evidence.....you do the math.
Why is there always a "BUT"......the EPA guidelines that the US and most of the civilized world follows are very clear. They define what's acceptable and what's not with no BUTS involved under any circumstances.... you and only you wish to muddy the water on a guideline written in black and white numbers. Under 4.0pCi/L is ok......anything over that isn't....no BUTS.
Why do you always do nothing but go back to the recommendation and make it sound like; "greater than 4 means you are going to get lung cancer" and "less than 4 means you are fine"? All I and the many other people in this thread who took the same position, have said is that people should understand the ACTUAL risks and what the numbers mean.
Why do you always do nothing but go back to the recommendation and make it sound like; "greater than 4 means you are going to get lung cancer" and "less than 4 means you are fine"? All I and the many other people in this thread who took the same position, have said is that people should understand the ACTUAL risks and what the numbers mean.
Again.....no BUTS......the EPA and world chose 4 because its a defined line in the sand for homeowners and buyers alike to make the required personal and legal decision......it wasn't to define who does or doesn't get lung cancer only to verify that the risk of lung cancer is greater when the concentration of radon is over 4. Your making this WAY to complicated.
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.
