SLRDs vs. Radon measurements

[Caoimhín P. Connell]

Good morning, Gents!

In anticipation of the questions raised in my most recent comments on costs of radon mitigation, and ceiling fans. Since the questions are bound to lead into a new area, I thought I would start a new thread.

Some inspectors may be confused and argue “Well, we did testing before and after the installation of the ceiling fans and the radon levels were exactly the same; therefore, the ceiling fans didn’t work.â€

[hausdok]

So,

What you're saying is; radon testing and all of these mitigation measures give folks a warm and fuzzy but it's mostly smoke and mirrors?

OT - OF!!!

M.

[Caoimhín P. Connell]

Good afternoon, Mike:

Well, pretty much. On the scale of things that kill and make humans ill, radon is so far at the bottom of the list (if at all), it hardly is worth the time considering it.

But because it is an emotional hot-button, it gets a lot of attention. When we look at lung cancer rates over the years, we see a correlation with other societal aspects, but there is no legitimate evidence that radon mitigation has any effect on the lung cancer rate.

I’m all for warm and fuzzy. I’ve been told that underneath my callous and insensitive exterior I’m just all warm and fuzzy, myself.

Cheers!

Caoimhín P. Connell

Forensic Industrial Hygienist

www.forensic-applications.com

(The opinions expressed here are exclusively my personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect my professional opinion, opinion of my employer, agency, peers, or professional affiliates. The above post is for information only and does not reflect professional advice and is not intended to supercede the professional advice of others.)

AMDG

[Chris Bernhardt]

On the scale of things that kill and make humans ill

Thread drift - Ain't that the truth, My wife could have been killed last night. I gave her permission to go out with some girl friends and they (my wife wasn't driving but it was our car/truck) were coming home last night at 3:30am in the morning and wrapped our Surburban around a utility pole. Only the driver had lacerations. I bitch and bitch about how much that dam Suburban costs to drive but if it had been any other car it would have exploded!

Chris, Oregon

[ozofprev]

Very fortunate.

Glad there were no serious injuries.

Caoimhín,

You're fairly close to Denver. Were you one of the voters who attempted to make marijuana legal there????

[fqp25]

Gary,

PNot again....

[Caoimhín P. Connell]

Good morning, Gary –

Funny you should ask that. Before I answer, let me tell you this. It’s 3:00 a.m. and I just got off duty from my other vocation. I just wrapped up a D.U.I. case, wherein I arrested a guy who hit two pedestrians resulting in what appears to be serious bodily injury in both. I responded to that call from another wreck wherein a slightly intoxicated man rolled his pickup, resulting in head injuries to his passenger.

By contrast, on Wednesday, I conducted a drug interdiction on a car that resulted in less than one ounce of marijuana; the driver was clean, and apart from being a knucklehead, didn’t hurt anyone.

I’ve had to fight my share of drunks (tonight wasn’t one of them, he was a decent respectful individual). But, I cannot think of a single time when I have had to fight a pot head (drawn down on a few, but that deescalated the confrontation).

Much of the harder criminal activity I see with pot stems from its prohibition, and the necessity of the criminal element to supply the drug.

On the balance – my experience with small time pot users is much less dramatic and less threatening than alcohol users. My experience with pot sellers, and distributors is somewhat more deadly, hair-raising and chilling. Having said that, the intentional introduction of another legitimate intoxicant troubles me.

I think that there are legitimate medicinal uses for THC, and I also believe that marijuana has legitimacy in specific religious practices, but at the same time, I have seen marijuana as a gate-way drug, and I’ve pulled too many corpses from cars to think that it is “harmless.â€

[ozofprev]

Wow, that's a long way from indoor air quality. Are these citizen's arrests or are you trained/licensed in law enforcement (like Elvis)?

Frank, yes - NPot again... Enjoy Jersey! (I spent '68-'70 at East Brunswick H.S.)

[Darren]

Chris;

I know the feeling well..

http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?secti ... id=5894504

click on the small center picture for the noon news report. My son was driving 'the other car'.

Glad all worked out well for you too! The more you think about it, the more you appreciate what you have.

[hausdok]

I dunno, Caoimhín

I used to think you were the smartest guy that's ever posted on these boards. However, knowing now that you're a cop, and being a retired cop, now I have to reassess my assessment. [:-boggled [:-magnify

ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!!

Mike

[ozofprev]

Yeah, and I was just kidding about the pot.[:-party]

[:-paperba

[hausdok]

Originally posted by ozofprev

Yeah, and I was just kidding about the pot.[:-party]

[:-paperba

Oh hell,

I better call up and cancel my call to the Buffalo tips line.

Sorry Gary! [:-mischie

ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!!

Mike

[kurt]

Originally posted by Caoimhín P. Connell

On the scale of things that kill and make humans ill, radon is so far at the bottom of the list (if at all), it hardly is worth the time considering it.

When we look at lung cancer rates over the years, we see a correlation with other societal aspects, but there is no legitimate evidence that radon mitigation has any effect on the lung cancer rate.

Cheers!

Caoimhín P. Connell

Forensic Industrial Hygienist

www.forensic-applications.com

I'd love to engage the bong bangers in discourse, but.......

Can we revisit the above quoted topic? Do you (Caiomin) have credible source(s) for that statement?

(Reason I ask, is my friend the radiologist says the same thing, but he doesn't have any particular reference source other than his own research, which isn't documented in any manner that allows him to publish it. And, he doesn't want the hassle of going up against EPA constituencies, because he works at a research facility. It's all very political, I guess.)

[Caoimhín P. Connell]

Good morning, Gents!

You bunch are too funny. No, Gary, the arrests are not “citizen’sâ€

[Caoimhín P. Connell]

Hello Kurt!

Sorry about the detour –

OK Back to topic –

Actually, you question begs a question, since, as posed, it requires one to prove a negative.

For example, I cannot find one singe scientifically valid study that PROVES that there is NO association between owning a green car and the incident rate of pancreatic cancer. Therefore, are we to conclude that since there are no such scientifically valid studies, we must therefore conclude that such an association MUST be present, however tenuous?

Of course not. But that is EXACTLY the rationale that the radon, toxic mould, and high voltage power line (EMF) proponents have used to “supportâ€

[ozofprev]

Since this thread seems to have replaced the other Rn thread, I've copied my response to your question here...id="blue">

Hi Caoimhín,

Thanks for the response. Actually Holub's work was with mixing fans in environmental chambers. Holub thought much of the plateout activity occurs on the fan blades themselves.

I have always enjoyed information in Thad Godish's Indoor Air Pollution Control. It covers many topics - I'm sure you've read it. In that book, he writes:

"Rudnick et al., also working with environmental chambers, observed mixing fan-related reductions in WLs on the order of 40-70%, with greater than 90% of the plateout taking place on room surfaces."

Honestly, I thought that 90% number may have been what you were using. That, of course is 90% of the 40-70%.

Although your source references Rudnick, I don't have access to your exact reference - but I'll trust you.

[kurt]

Possibly I misstated my question. I'm not challenging, I'm asking.

If there is no credible reference for the EPA's claims, what are they basing their most current radon campaign upon? There isn't any document, anywhere, that links radon and lung cancer rates? Or did I misunderstand again, and you're arguing no verifiable link between radon mitigation systems and lung cancer(?).

Some of what you responded with sounded mildly specious, and not the technical refutation I'm seeking. Again, not arguing, but seeking reference material. I figure since you're making hard statements, you can back them up w/a research paper.

Reason I ask, is I would love to debunk a couple of the radon maniacs in my neighborhood that are latching onto EPA statements as their sole argument as to how we're all going to die from radon related lung cancer.

[Scottpat]

Originally posted by kurt

Possibly I misstated my question. I'm not challenging, I'm asking.

If there is no credible reference for the EPA's claims, what are they basing their most current radon campaign upon? There isn't any document, anywhere, that links radon and lung cancer rates? Or did I misunderstand again, and you're arguing no verifiable link between radon mitigation systems and lung cancer(?).

Some of what you responded with sounded mildly specious, and not the technical refutation I'm seeking. Again, not arguing, but seeking reference material. I figure since you're making hard statements, you can back them up w/a research paper.

Reason I ask, is I would love to debunk a couple of the radon maniacs in my neighborhood that are latching onto EPA statements as their sole argument as to how we're all going to die from radon related lung cancer.

From what I have read and seen of Caoimhín's post is that this is his opinion. He is is one camp and the EPA and numerous other governmental health agencies across the world are in the other.

[hausdok]

Hmm,

I dunno, here's an article that claims that radon kills more people every year than drunk drivers. If that's true, that's not a small number, since there were nearly 75,000 deaths caused by drunk drivers from 2001 through 2006.

I suppose one could say it's a lot less than the number of people that die from natural causes every year, but it's still significant at an average of 14,492 people a year.That's an average of 289 people per state; if in every state 289 people suddently keeled over at the same time, Jonestown style, and it could definitely be linked to radon, everyone would be freaking out.

Thoughts?

OT - OF!!!

M.

[hausdok]

Once more with fervor!

Click Here!

[Caoimhín P. Connell]

Good morning, Gents!

Sorry about the delay in replying.

Kurt asks:

Do you (Caiomin) have credible source(s) for that statement?id="blue">

Response:

Yes. If you take a look at my previous discussions, you will see that I actually reference the US EPA’s own work which indicates there is NO MEASURABLE risk. Additionally, I have referenced the NESHAPS docs as well as the DOE docs. In each of these docs, we see that these organizations themselves admit that they cannot observe a risk, but merely presume that one MUST necessarily be present.

But dang it! Folks, if it really was present, then why, after exhaustive attempts, can we not observe the increased risk? More importantly, why, after hundreds of studies, do we see a DECREASED risk in lung cancer at concentrations normally seen in residences?

Essentially, articles like those referenced above by Mike add to the tautology of the argument, (repeat it often enough and it becomes “factâ€

[hausdok]

Hi Caoimhín

Don't take it personal. Since I don't even do radon, I've never even bothered to pay much attention to these articles or the studies. I post a ton of stuff here that I don't necessary agree with or know anything about just for the sake of stimulating discussions like this.

ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!!

Mike

[Caoimhín P. Connell]

Hello All!

OK – Response to an email which raised a valid criticism. In my previous response to Kurt in Chicago who asked:

If there is no credible reference for the EPA's claims, what are they basing their most current radon campaign upon?id="blue">

I merely pointed back to the original EPA studies. I did this because the EPA themselves tell us that is what they did. So the question was – where is the reference and how do we know the EPA is still using the same data and models?

OK – That's fair. So here we go...

In the “latestâ€

[kurt]

Now, that was entertaining.

You'da thunk ol' Mr. O was writing this one, although the O (as his friends call him) tends to go w/single space diatribes, not the Socratic dialogue.

I might just have to print this and hand it out when I'm feeling frisky.

Any restrictions on handouts, so long as there's attribution?

[hausdok]

[:-bigeyes [:-banghea [:-boggled [:-gnasher [:-headach [:-hypnoti [:-irked] [:-nonono] [:-ouch] [:-banghea [] [:-scared] [:-cry] [:-shake] [:-sick][:-taped] [:-weepn] [:-wiltel] [:-yuck] [:-timebm] [:-banghea

I'm just expressing frustration with the whole radon thingy. First it's bad, then it's not, then it's bad, and then it seems like the government drones have been lying to people for years.

Jeez! What the hell is one to think! Yesterday, for only about the 4th time in 11 years, a client who'd moved here from Portland expressed concern about radon. I explained to him how the state radiation guru had said that the only "hot" spots in Washington state are in Spokane and in the Vancouver area (just across the Columbia from Portland), but that if I wanted to do the testing in order to give my clients a warm and fuzzy, sure, go ahead. He seemed to understand, but his wife was having none of it. She expressed solid conviction that she knows it kills people, so it looks like they'll need to do some testing before she feels safe. I gave them the name of a reliable local environmental testing lab.

OT - OF!!!

M.