I think this radon thing is a lot of BS and just a money making scheme for a
few to get rich.
All of a sudden a scare tactic is sent out to everyone. Smoking is the
cancer cause not the so-called radon in homes. I would like to see at least
one case caused by radon in homes.


"Duane Bozarth" wrote in message
...
PVR wrote:

We have a Radon problem. A house up the street has 90 picoCuries (owners
emit a slight blue glow at night 'g'). The next in line has 40, the next
is
12 and then there is ours, not yet tested.

On that basis, one could project something on the order of 4 pCi(/l)...

Peculiar that there's such a gradient--must be some underlying reason
for that assuming the houses in a subdivision are roughly same vintage
and construction.

I have been trying to get info off the 'Net regarding Radon exposures.
So
far the best I have obtained refers to a lifetime of exposure (whatever
that
means). For example, a lifetime exposure of 10 indicates that 18 people
out
of a thousand "could" come down with lung cancer. This is twenty times
the
probability that we could die in a house fire.

As indicated this is all based on a lifetime's exposure. What I need to
know
is the risk of exposure of a much shorter time, say, two years.

Does anyone know of a data source(s) where I can search for the info I
want?
Also is there another NG I should consult?

There's a link from the EPA site

http://www.epa.gov/radon/risk_assessment.html

that has a secondary link to a revised study that is supposed to have a
risk model to calculate a numerical estimate of the risk per unit
exposure [lung cancer deaths per working level month (WLM)].

http://www.epa.gov/radiation/docs/as...2-r-03-003.pdf

I'd note the use of "calculate" above...the uncertainty range on that
same page for the estimated number of annual mortalities from Ra-related
lung cancers varies from a minimum of roughly 40% to a maximum of 200%
-- enough to indicate the data are simply not more than ballpark
guesses.

That there's some additional risk is reasonably clear, but to think it's
possible to get an actual value that's more than that is just wishful
thinking....

In other words, from my viewpoint, get the test, if it's really high
consider some abatement perhaps, but it is highly unlikely it will be a
serious health problem. Of course, statistics and probablilities being
what the are, you could be the next case tomorrow whether you do
something or not.