Well, you have to say that Caoimhin can speak with authority on this subject. He has done his homework.

However, he stated that

"In other words, statistically significant elevated risks were observed in only 3 out of 14 similar good epidemiological studies (three studies showed a risk, and 11 studies failed to show a significant risk"

Given the uncertainty of cofounding factors, relying only on what Caoimhin wrote, I would say that at best the subject needs further studies. I've seen four or five studies that back up his postition, but there are others that definitively say that Radon has a cancer risk.

Or Caoimhin is right and the others are wrong. Who knows? I'd argue that a couple of grand on a mitigation system is cheap insurance.

Also, the business he is in seems to be tilted toward catching the criminals. Some of the examples of "qualifiers" used in some of the studies are standard fare of scientific reports. One professor mentioned in the Garden Web debate that sometimes the language seems coy, but it is just a scientist leaving the door open for new facts to influence his opinion on the matter.

Still, it was a very interesting read, and I will have to look up some of the more recent Radon studies and ask Caoimhins opinion on them.

Certainly can not dismiss his views after that effort.

Thanks for pointing me to the info John.

Al