Debunking the myths of radon hazards

[ordasea]

http://www.cheec.uiowa.edu/misc/radon.html

The Iowa Radon Lung Cancer Study was a large-scale epidemiology study initiated in 1993 and funded by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS). The study assessed the risk posed by residential radon exposure. The 5-year study was performed in Iowa and the participants were women throughout Iowa who lived in their current home for at least 20 years. Over a thousand Iowa women took part in the study. Four hundred and thirteen of the participants were women who had developed lung cancer, the remaining 614 participants were controls who did not have lung cancer. The study was limited to women, because they historically tend to spend more time at home and they have less occupational exposure to other lung carcinogens.

The epidemiologic study was performed in Iowa for several reasons. Iowa has the highest average radon concentrations in the United States. In addition, women in Iowa tend to move less than most other states, which makes calculation of their past radon exposure easier. Iowa was also selected because it has a quality National Cancer Institute SEER cancer registry, which helped us identify women who developed lung cancer. Close to 60% of the basement measurements for both cases (participants with lung cancer) and controls (participants without lung cancer) exceeded the EPA's action level. Twenty-eight percent of the living areas for the controls and 33% of the living areas for the cases exceeded the EPA's action level of 4 pCi/L.

The Iowa Radon Lung Cancer Study had several strengths. First, independent pathologic review was performed for 96 percent of the cases. Second, the study was carried out in Iowa, which has the highest mean radon concentrations in the United States. Third, the high radon concentrations in conjunction with a strict quality assurance protocol contributed to accurate and precise radon measurements. Fourth, the IRLCS criteria requiring occupancy in the current home for at least the last 20 years eliminated the need to impute radon measurements from missing homes. Fifth, the linkage between radon measurements and retrospective participant mobility allowed for a refined exposure estimate. The IRLCS risk estimates are in general agreement with the National Research Council's predicted cancer risk associated with indoor radon exposure. Overall, the risk estimates obtained in this study suggest that cumulative radon exposure in the residential environment is significantly associated with lung cancer risk

[ordasea]

Alzheimer’s & Parkinson’s – Could the Cause be Radon?

PDF - Detailed Study Results

http://www.radonnews.org/pages/Alzeheim ... nsons.html

In a study conducted at the University of North Dakota, researchers discovered that the presence of radioactive radon daughters in the brains of non-smoking persons with Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s disease was 10 times greater than it was in the brains of persons with no previous evidence of neurological disorders. Professor Glenn Lykken and Dr. Berislav Momcilovic assert their study demonstrates that indoor radon gas has the capacity to irreversibly infest the brain with the poisonous progeny of radioactive heavy metals.

University of North Dakota researchers are looking for more funding to continue their research. To access the study in its entirety, please go to www.radonnews.org or the Alzheimer Disease and Associated Disorders Magazine. Contact: Professor G.I. Lykken at UND at (701) 777 – 3519.

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jun2005 ... -22-02.asp

20 Countries Act to Repel Deadly Radioactive Radon Gas

GENEVA, Switzerland, June 22, 2005 (ENS) - Exposure to a natural radioactive gas in the home and workplace causes tens of thousands of deaths from lung cancer each year, the World Health Organization (WHO) said Tuesday. Recent results from the largest radon studies ever conducted in North America and Europe show six to 15 percent of all lung cancers are caused by exposure to the gas.

[ordasea]

Radon Professionals - Working together - Sharing information for the common good.

Maine is out front yet again in protecting human health from radon by “emphasizing a radon cleanup level of 2 pCi/Lâ€

[ordasea]

New threshold for deadly radon gas

Federal change means thousands of homes once thought safe will soon be considered to pose lung cancer threat

Larry Pynn, Vancouver Sun

An estimated 500,000 Canadians are living in homes that exceed pending new federal guidelines for radon gas, a naturally occurring radioactive substance described by health officials as a quiet killer and the leading cause of lung cancer after smoking, The Vancouver Sun has learned.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The risk of radon and your health

Radon's impact on property values

Fact Sheet: What is radon gas?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news ... 9732fb9b1f

Countries such as Australia, Spain, and the United Kingdom already have a standard of 200 becquerels. The U.S. has the lowest of all at 150 becquerels, a guideline adopted in 1986 and described by the Environmental Protection Agency as "a balance between health protection and what is technically feasible."

All of which raises the question: Should Canada have acted sooner to lower the radon guideline?

Tracy responded from Ottawa that the federal government did not have solid enough evidence to support the lower guideline and did not want to frighten Canadians into making unnecessary improvements to their homes.

"Before you impose a heavy burden on the homeowner, make sure there really is a hazard," he said.

"Now, we've concluded, yes, indeed, it is a hazard."

Acknowledging the U.S. seems to have taken the right

[Fumento]

I really thought radon inspectors were smarter than they have appeared on the list. So many are like sheep not thinking for themselves, but following the thoughts of self-professed "forensic" toxicologist. The guy is a hack for hire.

From his postings it is clear he has little experience in epidemiology. All I ask is that you go to Pubmed http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi

and then search for radon. Amazing how all these scientists are wrong and only our forensic toxicologist friend is right.

This guy is making fools of you. Several lists have linked to this site and the list members can not believe how gullible you are. At least some inspectors get it. The guy is a nut case.

[hausdok]

Ordasea,

It looks like you are cutting and pasting content from other sites to TIJ without attributing it to it's source. That's a copyright violation and I don't allow it here.

I don't have time to cull through all of these posts and determine which is a direct quote from someone else's site and which is your words, so please edit all of the posts you've made above and attribute what's in those posts to the original authors/sites, so as to differentiate them from what you are saying. Alternatively, you can delete all of the cut and pasted material and leave just the links to that material and that will be fine.

ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!!

Mike (Occasional owner/editor of this place)

[Brad Manor]

Fumento,

Welcome to the forum. In all my time visiting this site, this is the first time I've borne witness to name calling. While I'm sure everyone here respects your right to an opinion, "nut case" and "hack for hire" are emotional arguments rather than rational ones. Provide me with objective opinions, and I'm happy to listen.

-Brad

[ozofprev]

Hi Michael F.,

Welcome to our little hangout. We come here to learn. You appear to have all the answers - cool.

I read several of the abstracts based on the search you recommended. What I found shows that Rn is known to cause lung cancer. Nobody here denied that.

I could not find in any of the abstracts an indication that we know correct action levels.

Could you do me (us) a favor and specify a particular paper that provides this information? That would be helpful. Thanks.

Originally posted by Fumento

I really thought radon inspectors were smarter than they have appeared on the list. So many are like sheep not thinking for themselves, but following the thoughts of self-professed "forensic" toxicologist. The guy is a hack for hire.

From his postings it is clear he has little experience in epidemiology. All I ask is that you go to Pubmed http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi

and then search for radon. Amazing how all these scientists are wrong and only our forensic toxicologist friend is right.

This guy is making fools of you. Several lists have linked to this site and the list members can not believe how gullible you are. At least some inspectors get it. The guy is a nut case.

[kurt]

Like Gary said, no one's in denial, or making ridiculous claims that radon is healthy. I'm not sure you're seeing any of this for what it is.

Given the many action levels by several different organizations & countries around the globe, it's clear there is disagreement among all the experts.

I'm just looking for separation of wheat from chaff. I know toxicoligists & radiologists (Northwestern researchers) that agree w/Caomin, and I know other's that disagree.

I tend to listen to folks that offer rational arguments & present credible sources, and tend to not listen to folks that call other folks names. You might have a more convincing position if you'd lay off the name calling.

[Niton]

There have been numerous residential radon studies that clearly demonstrate that prolonged exposure to residential radon even below the EPA's action level of 4 pCi/L significantly increases lung cancer risk. The Iowa Radon Lung Cancer Study as well as the European and North American Pooling Studies support this view. In addition, the risk noted in the studies are in agreement with projections from 40 years of work studying radon-exposed underground miners.

See also: http://www.aarst.org/radon_articles.shtml

[kurt]

I agree. What would be interesting is a study of working levels, which doesn't ever seem to make it to light.

Developing guidelines based on miners' working in radon enriched environments doesn't seem like a sound way to analyze this though, does it?

And, the whole concept of an "action level" seems sort of strange. Why isn't there a toxicological threshold w/ppb's, or ppm's, related to working levels? All other toxic substances seem to use this approach; why does radon study use action levels? It's kind of like the gov't. using color warnings to inform of us terrorist risk. What does it really mean?

[Caoimhín P. Connell]

Hello Gents:

Actually – the ad hominem attacks are normal fare in my business and the three posters (Fumento, Niton and ordasea) and are actually the same person; [:-paperba I also believe I know who the poster(s) really is; he is in Iowa and made a terrible embarrassment of himself in another forum. It looks like he did not learn his lesson… Maybe I should contact the ethics department at his university admin…. Hmm…

As a general rule, folks like him lack technical competence to argue the technical aspects and must necessarily resort to ad hominem attacks. It’s for these reasons, that they never use their real names.

In one case, the individual (a professor in Iowa) resorted to fabricating a new name (as he has done here) and began making posts about himself wherein he lauded himself as one of the greatest scientists to walk the Earth, whereas I was evil, stupid, corrupt, etc … what he didn’t realize was that the forum displayed his ISP number at the bottom of each post which actually identified him as the same guy…OOOPs. I don’t think he realizes that if I wasn’t so tolerant, I could probably own his university pension (not to mention his home) following a libel suit.

His tactic was essentially the same as that seen here: The repetitive regurgitation of blocks of text, which out any apparent understanding of the content or context and the repetitive use of links. This is an exercise in tautology; repeat it over and again until you repeat it so often it becomes “fact.â€

[Niton]

Kurt,

Interesting comments, working level months were used in the Iowa Radon Lung Cancer Study since cumulative exposure was ascertained. If toxicological thresholds were used, the threshold would be well below 4 pCi/L based on risk. The action level is NOT a risk based guideline. On the other hand, standards can be promulgated for waterborne radon. As you likely know, the proposed waterborne standard is 300 pCi/L based primarily on the off-gassing of radon from water and its resulting risk. It is ESTIMATED that for a typical household, if the waterborne radon is 10,000 pCi/L it will contribute 1 pCi/L to the indoor air. As you can see, the 300 pCi/L will contribute little radon to the indoor air, but nonetheless is risk-based unlike the action level for indoor air. The EPA can not adopt "standards" for indoor air, but only provide guidelines.

Bill Field

[hausdok]

Okay Guys,

Keep it on-topic and about the science. Any more name calling and I'm going to start cleaning the threads up.

OT - OF!!!

M.

[Niton]

An excellent book that traces some of the origins of the radon action level is called Radon's Deadly Daughters by Edelstein Michael R. You can probably purchase a used copy from Amazon or some other book outlet for under $10.00.

The technical support document for the U.S. EPA Citizen's Guide also provides insights into the action level. "Technical Support Document for the 1992 Citizen's Guide to Radon" (1992), EPA no. 400-R-92-001. Other EPA radon-related publications can be found here -http://www.epa.gov/radon/pubs/index.html

Home inspectors can receive free copies of the Citizen Guide and many other publications upon request. These may serve as useful reference materials that can be handed out during a home inspection.

Bill Field

[Terence McCann]

Originally posted by Caoimhín P. Connell

Hello Gents:

Actually – the ad hominem attacks are normal fare in my business and the three posters (Fumento, Niton and ordasea) and are actually the same person; [:-paperba I also believe I know who the poster(s) really is; he is in Iowa and made a terrible embarrassment of himself in another forum. It looks like he did not learn his lesson… Maybe I should contact the ethics department at his university admin…. Hmm…

As a general rule, folks like him lack technical competence to argue the technical aspects and must necessarily resort to ad hominem attacks. It’s for these reasons, that they never use their real names.

In one case, the individual (a professor in Iowa) resorted to fabricating a new name (as he has done here) and began making posts about himself wherein he lauded himself as one of the greatest scientists to walk the Earth, whereas I was evil, stupid, corrupt, etc … what he didn’t realize was that the forum displayed his ISP number at the bottom of each post which actually identified him as the same guy…OOOPs. I don’t think he realizes that if I wasn’t so tolerant, I could probably own his university pension (not to mention his home) following a libel suit.

His tactic was essentially the same as that seen here: The repetitive regurgitation of blocks of text, which out any apparent understanding of the content or context and the repetitive use of links. This is an exercise in tautology; repeat it over and again until you repeat it so often it becomes “fact.â€

[Les]

I have learned from both and all posts. That is what it is all about. Nothing better than a good discussion, argument, quarell - it lets you see both sides! I get the prize because I stayed out of it and observed. BTW my opinion hasn't changed much.

[Scottpat]

I'm with Les on this topic. My opine has not changed very much. As long as the EPA says it is an issue I will have a market segment that wants this service and I will provide it as long as it is requested.

[Jim Morrison]

Scott,

"As long as the EPA says it is an issue I will have a market segment that wants this service and I will provide it as long as it is requested."

HI's use that very argument to justify mold testing every day, don't they? I think it's incumbent upon us all to know more and do better. I think you're the kind of guy who does just that, but I'd hate for a noob to read your post and feel free to provide clients with whatever they ask for, for a fee.

[Scottpat]

Jim that is a very good point, education is the key to everything. I guess I don't look at mold and radon the same way. EPA says radon is a problem that can kill you, they are pretty silent on the mold issue.

[Niton]

EPA has a fairly updated guide to mold - http://www.epa.gov/mold/ and a nice resource page.

One of the benefits of a radon mitigation system is that in many cases it reduces moisture in the basement so in some instances has a secondary benefit. It also helps, in some cases, to prevent soil gases from entering the home.

[kurt]

Just so' you know I'm not a complete Philistine....

One of my main problems is the governmental aspect of these initiatives. If you've ever worked for the gov't., and I have, there's constituencies that get built, dept. budgets that have to be used up, and all manner of career-ing that somehow skews good science.

Maybe it is good science, but maybe it's not. If it's our gov't. that's doing the science, I have a knee jerk reaction to disbelief.

Is there any independent research that addresses these concerns?

[Niton]

Kurt, Good question -

Yes, residential radon studies have been funded by governments all over the world and performed in: New Jersey, Missouri I, Canada, Iowa, Missouri II, Connecticut, Utah, S. Idaho Shenyang, China, Stockholm, Sweden, Swedish nationwide, Winnipeg, Canada, S. Finland, Finnish nationwide, SW England, W. Germany, Sweden, Czech Republic, Italy-Trento, Spain, Austria, France, China - Gansu Province, E. Germany, and Russia.

The bottom line is that the pooled analyses indicate that prolonged residential radon exposure represents a lung cancer risk at prolonged exposures even under the EPA's action level.

Dr. Bill Field

[ozofprev]

Great. Show me.

By 'pooled', I take it you are saying a valid meta analysis exists. So point the way. I can read and decide the 'bottom line' for myself.

I don't know if you are also that Michael F character or not, but he still owes me. (I'm not getting personal Mike O, this is just a strange thread) Just the facts, please.

ON SECOND THOUGHT...id="maroon">

I need nothing more. After reviewing this thread, I think Jimmy summed everything up quite nicely in his first post.

I'm a happy camper. As a NEHA certified Rn measurement provider, I am qualified to provide the reliable information my clients can use to decide for themselves.

Today is the second nice day this year in Buffalo. Time for fun...

Originally posted by Niton

Kurt, Good question -

Yes, residential radon studies have been funded by governments all over the world and performed in: New Jersey, Missouri I, Canada, Iowa, Missouri II, Connecticut, Utah, S. Idaho Shenyang, China, Stockholm, Sweden, Swedish nationwide, Winnipeg, Canada, S. Finland, Finnish nationwide, SW England, W. Germany, Sweden, Czech Republic, Italy-Trento, Spain, Austria, France, China - Gansu Province, E. Germany, and Russia.

The bottom line is that the pooled analyses indicate that prolonged residential radon exposure represents a lung cancer risk at prolonged exposures even under the EPA's action level.

Dr. Bill Field

[Richard Stanley]

Jim Morrison

Do you, or anyone, do radon testing in Mexico?