DIYbanter - View Single Post - Slight radon problem, exchange basement air how often?

Steve

wrote:
Nick, nice post, but now tell me:

Do you know of even one case where the EPA has not fudged, biased,
exagerated, or taken the scientific evidence out of context? Perhaps
you're better informed than me on such political subjects, but I cannot
remember even a single case where the EPA conclusions did not
significantly depart from the scientifically researched facts rather
than being based on their own rather bizarre political agenda.

The Radon thing is similiar to the case EPA, FAA, or some other federal
agency made claim against smoking aboard airplanes. The motivation was
entirely political and was lobbied by the airline industry, because
simply by prohibitiing smoking on airplanes, the air replacement rate
could be sharply reduced. Since replacement air cost fuel the to heat
the external air to acceptable cabin temperaturs, a significant fuel
savings resulted to the airlines by prohibiting smoking.

On the downside, recirculation of ambinet air inside the cabin spreads
microbes thoughout the aircraft, which is today why many people become
ill only a few days after a having taken a long airline flight. One can
only hope that among the passangers is no one with antibiotic immune
TB, or worse.

Only the naive believe that federal regulation are created out of
totally altruistic intent -- Where in fact most are created as the
result of special interest lobby groups operating out of purely profit
motives.

Ask yourself this question: Who profited most from the anti-smoking
legislation and resulting lawsuits. Dhuhh, not surprisingly Hillary
Clinton's brother, Hugh Rodham. How many live did this legislation
save? My guess would be none, although a fun and profitable time was
had by all its promoters! My gues is that both Hugh and Hillary smoke,
but they are very guarded in doing so. Just my guess, simply because I
don't know anyone in a high pressure, responsible position that doesn't
smoke, at least in secret.

Then sanity check on any new legislation or regulatory restrictions is
first to determine who would profit and who would loose if such
legislation or regulations to be enacted. In most cases you'll find
that who would benefit most are the promoters and supporters of such
legislation or regulations. Secondary benefits, if any at all, are
generally pretty accidental.

While I am not particularly interested in the drug culture within the
US, the Harrison Narcotics Tax Act, 1914 stands out in my mind as the
perfect worst case example of personal profit interests impacting
federal legislation. This particular bill was heavily lobbied for by
the major ethical drug producers in the US, to simply increase their
profit margins by eliminating the then existing over-the-counter and
street competition. Then end result was to create an uncontrolled,
$400,000,000,000 (if I have that right it should be $400 billion)
illicit drug market that exist in the US through today. Similarly, the
Volstead Act, promoted by some well meaning but ill informed religous
enthusiasts, let to the creation of major crime syndicants such as
those of Al Capone and others.

Is it simply me, or are the people of this country so ill-educated that
they really don't realize this is how things have worked out in the
above directions, for at lest the 20th century. After all, how ignorant
can America be?

Hopefully, one of the role of the Internet, and its potential will to
be during the 21st century, to eliminate this sort of ignorance, which
if anything should put the Gypsy Scams and their fear promotions in to
their coffins and be buried forever. Hopefully, this will include the
govenment endorsed scams as well.

Harry C.

wrote:
wrote:

I am convince that the entire Radon scare thing, while now undergoing a
slow death is absolutely nothing but a total scam perpetrated to make
money. It is simply a high-tech version of the old Gypsy Curse thing,
in which if you pay someone, they will make the evil thing go away.
Sure, right!

The EPA says a non-smoker continuously exposed to 4 pCi/l has a lifetime risk
of dying of lung cancer of 73 in 10,000, ie odds of 139 to 1. At 1.25 (close
to the 1.3 average indoor level) it's down to 23/10K, ie 435:1. At 0.4 (the
average outdoor level), it's 23/100K, ie 4,348:1.

... 4 was picked as a reasonable level to obtain for a reasonable cost
for a reasonable number of homes without panicking the public or busting
the budget... not that based on the hazard and the risk and the cost of
mitigation to that level... we should be controlling it to below .4 pC/l
for the average public.

The NSC gives 2:1 (men) and 3:1 (women) odds for contracting heart disease,
3:1 for contracting diabetes, 228:1 for death as a car occupant, 1,310:1
for death by medical complications, 4,857:1 for death as a bicyle rider,
12,417:1 for legal intervention involving firearm discharge, 55,597:1 for
death by legal execution, 56,439:1 for death by lightning, 286,537:1 for
ignition or melting of nightwear, 372,498:1 for death by contact with
venemous spiders, 413,887:1 for death by flood, and 1,241,661:1 for death
by contact with venemous snakes or lizards.

WITH mitigation to the recommended level, we are a lot more likely to die
of radon than to die in a auto accident. So why do we spend so much more
money and effort protecting ourselves from auto accidents?

Nick