"Radon" the invisible foe

You could not be more correct. When we bought our house, which was built in 1966, we had it checked for radon and sure enough the levels were high. We had a professional come to install radon mitigation system. It barely takes any space, no sound whatsoever and it certainly is a piece of mind.

So very many people out there have no idea how dangerous it can be, just as cancerous as smoking a pack a day.
Thanks for the posting. Very informative.

"He also told me he personally knows of one case of lung cancer that developed in only eight months of exposure."

What are the odds, one in one hundred gazillion?
Sounds like a scare tactic to me.

" An acceptable level used to 4 but has since been lowered 2.7 by the World Health Organization."

The EPA recommends mitigation if the level exceeds 4. For non-smokers, the risk of cancer from radon exposure of levels between 2-4 compares to the risk of dying from poison.

Why did you remove my last post?
Is it because I'm challenging your assertions?

Jmark, Let’s set the record straight, I didn’t remove your post! I asked the editor and found it was removed for the reference to inappropriate language. I couldn’t respond until now because this is a new blog and there were some administrative items that had to be set. I appreciate a good challenge, so your comments are always welcome here. To your first comment; One in a hundred gazillion? Well honestly I can’t fathom that much since I took high school math in college, to be honest I had trouble with a trillion until January 2010, but I’m sure the odds are better than that, that one might develop cancer from high levels of radon.

Next, your reference to EPA standards is correct and quite easy to substantiate on the web, however my reference was to the standard set by WHO (World Health Organization). With another relatively simple search on the web one can ascertain the a much longer and highly controlled study was done globally to arrive at their number of 2.7. Sorry, I’m going with the big one!

The spirit of the post was to create awareness of potential health hazards related to elevated levels of radon gas, not to scare anyone. When we purchased our house 10 years ago we had to have basement work done to stop water intrusion, while referencing the condition report our basement company rep found a radon test report in the file stating that we had a radon level exceeding 11! Ignorant to the ramifications, I discounted his concern. A few years later, I met Bob Vescio and listened to him explain the health risks of radon and researched it some on my own after which, I immediately contracted him to install a system. In my opinion, any radon is to much for my family. So for what it’s worth, that’s my story and I’m sticking to it.

Thanks for the comments

Okay, you had my post removed because I stated Bob was full of bs for making the claim he knew of someone who died of lung cancer after eight months of exposure to radon. Until I see the coroners report, I'm sticking with the sounds-like-a-scare-tactic-to-me theory.

I'm a little confused by the reference you make to a condition report. I know that when purchasing a home the seller is required to furnish a real estate condition report to the buyer. If the seller was aware of high radon levels in the home and didn't list that as a defect on the report, the seller may be held liable for misrepresentation.

As I said I didn't have your post removed, but your right about the reason. As for my condition report, I would guess you're correct, however this was 10 years ago and the report I'm referencing was not part of the condition report but a separated document. As I think back, I'm wondering why that report even existed since we purchased the home from a relocation company. We were pretty engrossed in the whole water in the basement thing at the time and as I stated, dismissed the radon. Anyway, I'm sure there's a statute of limitations and I view lawsuits as bad karma. Thanks again

Jmark,

Uranium is abundant in our soil, therefore radon is too. Even if a condition report does not state that there are high levels of radiation at a home, that's not to say they will not go up in a few years. Take a look at Wisconsin's Radon levels throughout the decades. You will see that they have increased tremendously. Since Wisconsin is a farming state, soil is constantly being turned, matted, and turned up again. Since the half-life of Uranium is about 4.5 billion years, it is easy to see Radon is unavoidable and needs to be a cause of concern. I'm not saying that it is a reason to panic, but the chances of knowing someone with radon-related lung cancer is less than one in one hundred gazillion (And yes, I did take high school math, and passed). Actually I do believe that 20,000 or so deaths are related to Radon each year in the United States. Consider the blog a reminder that radon is present, and can be harmful, rather than a way to judge Bob's remarks. I mean you can stick with the scare-tactic theory but then again, it's better to be safe than sorry.

Re Jmark,

I can't believe I have actually witnessed this: a person who is Pro-Radon. Anyone who owns a home in SE Wisconsin has at least a passing knowledge of the prevalence of Radon in the soil, and sometimes, even in groundwater. In addition, if you are aware of Radon, you are likely aware of the health risks it poses, even if you don't know the specifics.

So instead of reacting to the information in the article as a rational, logical adult, you use an ad hominem attack, and a ridiculous reference to a non-existent number.

If you knew anything about the development of cancer, you would know that there is no set standard for susceptibility to a particular form of cancer among all humans (as in a "1-in-x chance"), rather, each person has a varying degree of susceptibility to developing a particular form of cancer. This individual susceptibility is based on factors such as genetics, lifestyle and environment. For example, one person may never develop lung cancer in a particular home, yet another may develop it quite rapidly. You may have also heard in recent years about the discovery of a "breast cancer gene" which greatly increases the risk of a woman who carries this gene developing breast cancer at some point in her life.

It would seem the wise choice in issues about health would be to inform oneself about the risks (if you view predominately terminal diseases such as lung cancer to be a bad thing, as I do, and something you would not want to develop), and take appropriate action to avoid or mitigate those risks, to the extent that your personal economics and behavior allow. Which really was the point of the article.

AG: I'm not Pro-Radon, I'm Anti-BS.

Bernee mentions that there are 20,000 radon related deaths per year in the U.S. Given the current population of 304 million, 1 in 15.2 million will die due to radon exposure this year. Oh, the humanity!

Sorry folks, I just don't find that to be an especially alarming statistic. The odds of dying as a result of being uninsured are greater.

Unless you work outdoors, you're spending approx. a third of your day in a structure that may have high levels of radon. Does anyone ever give that a moment of thought? And what about the schools? "EPA estimates that more than seventy thousand (70,000) schoolrooms in use today have high short-term radon levels."

http://www.epa.gov/radon/pubs/schoolrn.html

Are you putting your children at risk?

Actually, I think they do give it a moment of thought, if they are given the information...which was probably why the article was written. Considering I spent a semester in my college chemistry class talking about it, did a three month lab on radon exposure on our campus, and was tested on it on my final exam gives me reason to believe that others are concerned about it. As for my fellow classmates, they are now aware of it too. You ask, "are you putting your children at risk?". I think we put them more at risk if we don't make people aware of radon in buildings and what steps to take to improve air quality. Oh, and also, to put the statistic in perspective for you, I said 20,000 die each year of lung cancer due to radon...less than that die of AIDS each year in the U.S. Yet, our society reminds us every day of the precautions to take, and how to avoid contracting this disease. Why not do the same for radon exposure?

WOW! and I mean WOW, I honestly never thought this article would be this controversial! Well, what we have learned is that there are differing views on Radon. In the end, it seems the majority agrees that there is cause for concern on the radon issue. My next post will be on counter-tops and various materials, god only knows what can of worms that will open. Actually, thanks to all who posted, it makes it interesting .....NK

"In studies of uranium miners, workers exposed to radon levels of 50 to 150 picocuries of radon per liter of air for about 10 years have shown an increased frequency of lung cancer."

The radon mitigation guy knows of someone who died after only eight months of exposure. I don't know about anyone else, but that's enough to set off my bs detector.

For those who may be interested, you can purchase an EPA approved do-it-yourself radon test from your local hardware store for under forty dollars...it's so simple a cave man can do it. There, I've added informational value to this blog. My good deed for the day.

Concerning your next blog, you'll be happy to know that "at this time EPA believes that the existing data is insufficient to conclude that the types of granite commonly used in countertops are significantly increasing indoor radon levels." :-)

http://www.bvsde.paho.org/bvstox/i/fulltext/toxprofiles/radon.pdf

Jmark,
You're a blast! Stay with us, I enjoy your sense of humor. The Lone Ranger had Tonto, Matt Dillon had Festus, Colonel Sanders had .....um, ok bad example, but I've got Jmark.