Sun Nuclear CRM questions

[Jerry Simon]

Isn't there a school of thought that says the higher the radon level, the less the risk? (Really; I recall reading some such years ago.)

[Mark P]

Isn't there a school of thought that says the higher the radon level, the less the risk? (Really; I recall reading some such years ago.)

That is the same as saying the higher the levels of radiation were exposed too the safer we are.

[Mark P]

The EPA claims that radon is the second leading cause of lung cancer. Last year there were nearly 225,000 new cases reported. If even a tenth of those cases could be attributed to radon exposure then mitigation would be codified. Every new home would have a system by design and testing would be mandatory at resale for existing stock. It's all supposition. No one knows so who's gonna say they are wrong? It's scary that so many assume they are right.

I live in one of the hottest parts of the State according to DEC maps, and in nearly 30 years of remodeling work all over WNY I have encountered exactly 3 mitigation systems, and one of those wasn't running. If it were killing thousands of us every year there would be as many mitigators as there are 7-elevens. Try to find one, let alone a reputable one to give you an estimate, then who do you comparison shop with? At least that's how it is around here. Everyone wants a test, nobody mitigates.

In the grand scheme of things, it's a non-issue. In relation to a real estate transaction testing should be banned. This deal is going to go bad over a few hundred bucks worth of PVC and a fan that would do little more than increase the annual utility costs. All because someone advised them to test for something that not one of the parties knows anything about.

In Illinois radon mitigation is highly regulated by the state and thousands of system are installed every year. Also as of 1 June 2013 all new residential construction in this State must include passive radon resistant construction. The details of this are outlined in state regulations. The idea is that once the house is built if high levels of radon are found all that has to be done is install a fan and extend the vent pipe through the roof (turning the passive system into an active system).

I perform a lot of testing and when high levels are found the seller pays around $800 for a mitigation system and the deal goes forward. Certain laws in Illinois prevent realtors from avoiding radon anymore. Once the realtors got on board with it and became educated about it a lot of the stigma surrounding radon went away. Tesing and mitigation is very common in Illinois and some other states.

[gtblum]

Sure. Follow the money and the guy with the loudest voice.

That's pretty much how everything goes.

I saw a similar opinion of the same Jerry's talking about, a few years ago.

I think it was from a study done at a well known university.

Mark, Don't decay rates alter half lives dramatically? Isn't it a flip of the coin whether or not radon might or might not cling to particulates?

Going back to what Dirks said. There's really no way to prove it, given the number of other things humans are exposed to and have different tolerances for during the course of a life time.

My personal favorite is second hand smoke. Impossible to prove.

You can't smoke in the grandstands during a tractor pull or an auto race, (except Indy, where anything goes) but don't worry about the exhaust and brake dust. that's good for you, I guess.

[Marc]

Half-lives are a way to express decay rates. They refer to the same characteristic.

Marc

[gtblum]

Half-lives are a way to express decay rates. They refer to the same characteristic.

Marc

Thanks,

What I mean is, isn't the breakdown affected by variables?

[Marc]

Half-lives are a way to express decay rates. They refer to the same characteristic.

Marc

Thanks,

What I mean is, isn't the breakdown affected by variables?

As far as I know, it's a constant for each particular radioisotope.

Carbon dating uses that characteristic.

Marc

[kurt]

My personal favorite is second hand smoke. Impossible to prove.

You might want to look that one up again, although it also cuts across perfect political lines.

Forbes, CNN, Fox, Cato....they all cite studies with no clear link, then segue into how it's a coverup for another Obama secret agenda to fund overseas abortions.

American Cancer Society, Cardio-Pulmonary Medical professionals, EPA, WHO, CDC all cite second hand smoke as a clear and proven hazard, with a few proclamations of "indisputable fact".

Who are you going to believe?

When science goes political, it's over.

[mlparham]

Sounds like a lot of guys in the biz. Sorry to hear.

What's silly is all the fuss over radon. For the cost of a couple tests and the dinking around that's already occurred, one could put in a mitigation system and forget about it.

Inasmuch as the only folks I hear cranking about radon risks are the mopes charged with expending their budgetary allotment cranking about radon, I often wonder just how bad it really is. I don't know any medical professionals that seem to care a rats ass about radon, and I know a lot of uber uptight medical professionals concerned about everything......except radon.

[gtblum]

My personal favorite is second hand smoke. Impossible to prove.

You might want to look that one up again, although it also cuts across perfect political lines.

Forbes, CNN, Fox, Cato....they all cite studies with no clear link, then segue into how it's a coverup for another Obama secret agenda to fund overseas abortions.

American Cancer Society, Cardio-Pulmonary Medical professionals, EPA, WHO, CDC all cite second hand smoke as a clear and proven hazard, with a few proclamations of "indisputable fact".

Who are you going to believe?

When science goes political, it's over.

Ha! I've never looked any of it up. I'm waiting for them to name the first person they can prove it caused harm to. Too many other contributing factors over the course of a life time. That's my own opinion. I don't put much faith in the media or the opinions of political club members.

Recent studies have shown the results of studies generally fall in favor of the beliefs of those who sponsored the studies. []

[gtblum]

I think this keeps close enough to the subject, and why folks believe what they do.

Go directly to 16:18. Watch this and tell me it doesn't scare the hell out of you. We live in a world of idiots and followers. Nuff said. Study on!

[utube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPtHqqg_Ddc" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="344">

[Mark P]

Half-lives are a way to express decay rates. They refer to the same characteristic.

Marc

Thanks,

What I mean is, isn't the breakdown affected by variables?

Half-life is the amount of time required for a quantity to fall to half its initial value. It is at a known and unaltered rate. The half-life of uranium (the grandmother of radon) is 4.5 billion years. The half-life of radium (radon?s mother) is 1,600 years. Radon is 3.8 days and the RDPs that float around in the air and can be inhaled vary. Polonium-210, which has been used as a poison to assassinate political dissidents and possible even Yasser Arafat is a radon decay product with a half-life of 138 days.

[Jerry Simon]

Isn't there a school of thought that says the higher the radon level, the less the risk? (Really; I recall reading some such years ago.)

That is the same as saying the higher the levels of radiation were exposed too the safer we are.

Not at all, IMHO. But I won't argue the point.

This article mentions numerous times that studies show the higher the radon levels, the less the risk of cancer.

http://www.forensic-applications.com/radon/radon.html#Radon And Risk

Just one of many such article statements. . .

"A later study 10 (referred to as the Cohen Study), which is one of the largest studies, incorporated about 33% of the counties in the U.S. and looked at the issue of the linear, no-threshold dose-risk relationship used by the EPA. In this study, a least squares linear regression of lung cancer rates vs. mean radon levels gave a negative correlation between death and exposure levels. In other words, the higher the radon level in the county, the lower the death rate from lung cancer was for the community. The result was not due to questionable interpretation of shaky statistics; each of the studies showed a negative correlation with slopes of not less than seven standard deviations (and sometimes greater than 10 standard deviations) greater than zero."

(Regardless of what one may think of Caoimhin P. Connell

Forensic Industrial Hygienist)

[kurt]

I'm waiting for them to name the first person they can prove it caused harm to.

There was a long term study a few years back tracking kids that grew up with smokers. A large percentage of the kids developed asthma, pre-emphysema, or some other pulmonary problem normally associated with smoking. It's been shown over and over in a lot of studies.

My own study indicates smokers tend to dismiss stuff like smoking studies.

You a smoker?

I don't believe radon is harmless; I think it's a hazard. But, I question a lot of the silliness related to it's being tied to real estate transactions.

[kurt]

Testing and mitigation is very common in Illinois and some other states.

Further proof that Chicago and Illinois are two separate entities.

Few test and no one implements radon mitigation into new construction. I've never even heard of it. I called around to a few builder friends; they haven't heard about it either.

[Mark P]

Testing and mitigation is very common in Illinois and some other states.

Further proof that Chicago and Illinois are two separate entities.

Few test and no one implements radon mitigation into new construction. I've never even heard of it. I called around to a few builder friends; they haven't heard about it either.

Im not sure the link will work, but it is called the Radon Resistant Construction Act. http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/il ... apterID=37

I have not seen it being done either, but it is the law in Illinois.

I'd estimate around 60% of the homes I inspect also request radon testing.

[gtblum]

My own study indicates smokers tend to dismiss stuff like smoking studies.

You a smoker?

Yup, but I'm certainly not fool enough to dismiss the fact it's done harm to me.

I've also been exposed to concrete dust, asbestos, lead paint, lead fumes, numerous nuke plant drywell dives that resulted in exposures of over 300 mr per session, microwaves, ate cupcakes in school, played cops and robbers with fake guns, love bacon, eggs, and fried hamburgers.

Let's see if they can pinpoint which one gets me.

I will admit, I've cut way down on the running with scissors thing.

[kurt]

I'd say you're playing some lousy odds on a lot of tables. Why bother pinpointing anything?

[gtblum]

I'd say you're playing some lousy odds on a lot of tables. Why bother pinpointing anything?

Aren't we all? You understand my point.

If you're going to spend most of your life worrying about what might be the next thing that could kill you, you won't have time to spend much of your life, living.