hausdok Posted August 9, 2011 Report Share Posted August 9, 2011 For those interested, we've just uploaded a new radon study to the TIJ file library. The whole title and author line below is a link. Just click it. EPIDEMIOLOGICAL EVIDENCE FOR POSSIBLE RADIATION HORMESIS FROM RADON EXPOSURE: A CASE-CONTROL STUDY CONDUCTED IN WORCESTER, MA. by Richard E. Thompson Department of Biostatistics, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. Many thanks to Jimmy Morrison for this contribution. ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Les Posted August 9, 2011 Report Share Posted August 9, 2011 Wow! I had an interest until I read first 5-6 pages. I would like to know what the "bottom line is" and don't have the time to read and re-read it! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Raymond Posted August 9, 2011 Report Share Posted August 9, 2011 Agreed. It would be very helpful if someone who spoke that language could summarize that report in English. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Kibbel Posted August 9, 2011 Report Share Posted August 9, 2011 The conclusion of the study is very clear - they found that there needs to be additional studies conducted. They also imply that those future studies may not have any accurate conclusion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chad Fabry Posted August 9, 2011 Report Share Posted August 9, 2011 I read the whole thing and I admit I didn't understand everything the author had to say, but the charts were interesting. Correct me if I'm wrong, but just about the point where folks start to install mitigation systems has the lowest incidence of lung cancer- lower even than those who lived with less radon in their lives. Any increased risk associated with radon at any level is almost insignificant when compared to the impact of smoking or having smoked. I will bet money that saccharin, aspartame, diet pop, hot dogs, bologna, potato chips and pork rinds all pose a more significant health risk than just about any level of radon exposure. Oh, margarine too. I bet margarine is a killer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Morrison Posted August 9, 2011 Report Share Posted August 9, 2011 Thanks for uploading that Mike. Exactly, I think it's a reasonably well done study that points out there may be health risks associated with residential exposure to radon, but it's impossible to say definitively what they might be based on what we know today. Everyone will agree that less exposure to radioactivity is better than more, but the findings to date present more questions than answers. There are also some nuggets of good empirical information among the reams of obscure scientific language if any interested inspectors care to sift through it. Bottom line: Most of us know less about residential exposure to Radon than we think we do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Katen Posted August 9, 2011 Report Share Posted August 9, 2011 . . . Everyone will agree that less exposure to radioactivity is better than more, but the findings to date present more questions than answers. . . . Not at all. A fair amount of evidence shows that exposure to low levels of radioactivity is beneficial. The thought is that it stimulates the body's repair mechanisms. I suppose it's analogous to exposure to bacteria, viruses, and certain parasites. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bain Posted August 9, 2011 Report Share Posted August 9, 2011 . . . Everyone will agree that less exposure to radioactivity is better than more, but the findings to date present more questions than answers. . . . Not at all. A fair amount of evidence shows that exposure to low levels of radioactivity is beneficial. The thought is that it stimulates the body's repair mechanisms. I suppose it's analogous to exposure to bacteria, viruses, and certain parasites. I even read somewhere that it can REDUCE cancer rates because near-constant exposure to radiation kills cancer cells that are in the nascent stages of formation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Morrison Posted August 9, 2011 Report Share Posted August 9, 2011 . . . Everyone will agree that less exposure to radioactivity is better than more, but the findings to date present more questions than answers. . . . Not at all. A fair amount of evidence shows that exposure to low levels of radioactivity is beneficial. The thought is that it stimulates the body's repair mechanisms. I suppose it's analogous to exposure to bacteria, viruses, and certain parasites. Not at all. The background radiation that we're all exposed to every day, each time we fly, get our teeth x-rayed, or take vitamins (some contain more radiation than you'd guess) is more than enough to provide any sort of benefit like you describe. I'm pretty sure that think most of us get more than enough radiation just be mindlessly living our lives. I don't think there's a single credible study recommending that anyone in North America actually increase their radiation exposure. I'm more or less convinced that reducing our exposure to radiation is a worthy goal. How dangerous it is to live in a house with 4 pic/l Radon in the basement, is another question altogether and there are as yet no good answers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bain Posted August 9, 2011 Report Share Posted August 9, 2011 I took the four--or was it five?--day NEHA class, passed their test, and came away thinking no one really knows what's up with radon and how it really affects us. And a 48-hour measurement period, unless the results are ridiculously high, is pretty much a waste of time and dough for everyone involved. DISCLAIMER: Despite the foregoing, I DO place the Sun-Nuclear, follow the protocols, and pocket people's dough for doing so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rkenney Posted August 9, 2011 Report Share Posted August 9, 2011 Reminds me of that final high school lab assignment. The answer, "I dunno" was insufficient for a satisfactory grade. If, however, I had answered, "The data correlation is insufficient for a causal conclusion and will require further analysis and study of dubious value." I would undoubtedly received a passing grade, accolades, and a government grant for continued study! A confusing confluence of contradictory conclusions. Government hard at work or hardly working? [:-graduat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Katen Posted August 10, 2011 Report Share Posted August 10, 2011 . . . Everyone will agree that less exposure to radioactivity is better than more, but the findings to date present more questions than answers. . . . Not at all. A fair amount of evidence shows that exposure to low levels of radioactivity is beneficial. The thought is that it stimulates the body's repair mechanisms. I suppose it's analogous to exposure to bacteria, viruses, and certain parasites. Not at all. The background radiation that we're all exposed to every day, each time we fly, get our teeth x-rayed, or take vitamins (some contain more radiation than you'd guess) is more than enough to provide any sort of benefit like you describe. I'm pretty sure that think most of us get more than enough radiation just be mindlessly living our lives. I don't think there's a single credible study recommending that anyone in North America actually increase their radiation exposure. I'm more or less convinced that reducing our exposure to radiation is a worthy goal. How dangerous it is to live in a house with 4 pic/l Radon in the basement, is another question altogether and there are as yet no good answers. Read up on the concept of hormesis. Someday, we'll understand where the sweet spot is and I guarantee it won't be 4 pCi/L. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Katen Posted August 10, 2011 Report Share Posted August 10, 2011 More interesting reading: http://www.angelfire.com/mo/radioadaptive/inthorm.html I predict that 100 years from now, home inspectors will be recommending that people install "Radon Injection Systems" to pump healthful radon into homes to keep the ideal level at 25 pCi/L. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kurt Posted August 10, 2011 Report Share Posted August 10, 2011 http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/20 ... e-forever/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erby Posted August 10, 2011 Report Share Posted August 10, 2011 Good link, Kurt. Ever notice how what was bad for you years ago, is now good. what was good for you years ago, is now bad. I"ll die of something, but I'm going to have fun getting there, not spending all my time worrying about how. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Morrison Posted August 10, 2011 Report Share Posted August 10, 2011 Jim, I think you're only being 1/2 serious, but the point you make is the reason I posted the study. It illustrates just how little we know about the health effects of living in homes with elevated Radon levels. Jimmy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Katen Posted August 11, 2011 Report Share Posted August 11, 2011 Jim, I think you're only being 1/2 serious, but the point you make is the reason I posted the study. It illustrates just how little we know about the health effects of living in homes with elevated Radon levels. Jimmy Yes, and until we understand those health effects, its silly to alter radon levels in homes. We still don't know if we're making things better or worse by doing so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Morrison Posted August 11, 2011 Report Share Posted August 11, 2011 Do you do any Radon testing? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gtblum Posted August 11, 2011 Report Share Posted August 11, 2011 Good link, Kurt. Ever notice how what was bad for you years ago, is now good. what was good for you years ago, is now bad. I"ll die of something, but I'm going to have fun getting there, not spending all my time worrying about how. Me too. It's all about money. Always has been, always will be. They can't prove anything about anything. What they can do very well, is justify the grant money and their jobs. Everybody's got to eat, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Katen Posted August 11, 2011 Report Share Posted August 11, 2011 Do you do any Radon testing? Only when I can't talk my clients out of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Les Posted August 11, 2011 Report Share Posted August 11, 2011 My job for the day is inspecting and documenting a sub-slab reduction system that was installed by a traveling pack of neer'do-wells. It is in a 30+yrs old house with basement (poured), has three floor penetrations, one fan into attic and "switched" at main electric entrance panel. It was installed as a condition of sale last December to mitigate a level of 4.2pCi/L as determined by a $9.00 charcoal canister from Lowes. System installed, envelope containing charcoal used to confirm system effective. Present owners do a six month test with another charcoal can and find it now is 15pCi/L! They want to move into a motel until this condition is corrected. They suggested running fans thru basement windows year around. My point is I do not try to talk anyone out of testing. If they want the test, I will do it. I am sure I am as objective as others that have posted. I also believe my screenings are nearly worthless. Couple of years ago I bathed in a pool of Radon enriched water, cost $7.00 Canadian, along with hundreds of others for health reasons. I have not suffered from malaria since that time, so it must have worked! The company does about 2-3 screenings per day. 10-12% are above 4 pCi/L. We do not install systems. We do inspect systems. It is a service. PS: I do not get nutty about UFFI either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hausdok Posted August 11, 2011 Author Report Share Posted August 11, 2011 I'd love to do radon testing, The problem is that I live in an area where the state radiation guy (Yeah, that's right, I said "guy".) says radon exposure is negligible and isn't worth the trouble of testing for. Jeez, with officials like that as friends, who needs enemies? The extra revenue would be very welcome but then I'd get labeled as a money-grubbing fraud. Oh well, maybe I can sell foil helmets to protect folks against alien thought monitoring. ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Raymond Posted August 11, 2011 Report Share Posted August 11, 2011 Oh well, maybe I can sell foil helmets to protect folks against alien thought monitoring. Sell radiant barrier insulation instead. It's whole house protection.[] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marc Posted August 13, 2011 Report Share Posted August 13, 2011 http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/20 ... e-forever/ The author has a good point but at the article's end he ignored the attraction of living longer. Marc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emalernee Posted August 16, 2011 Report Share Posted August 16, 2011 Jim Katen wrote; "Not at all. A fair amount of evidence shows that exposure to low levels of radioactivity is beneficial. The thought is that it stimulates the body's repair mechanisms. I suppose it's analogous to exposure to bacteria, viruses, and certain parasites." So hanging with a few agents is not bad, it's when you get in a swarm of them that hurts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.