Radon - Fact v. Fiction

[Caoimhín P. Connell]

Hello Gents!

Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukah, Happy Birthday and all the rest!

Sorry about the cross posting of this post, and sorry I haven’t been participating on the boards lately – been slammed over the last several months. (Probably just as well for the Global Warming nutters, otherwise I would have had a lot of fun with the recent disclosure of widespread academic fraud in the Global Warming nutter’s camp– something that legitimate climatologists have been whining about for decades).

In any event, the academic fraud issue should be a clarion bell to those who think that objective science is used by policy wonks. Wrong.

I have just finished revising two web sites in another area where we see junk science predominating in the public view with the silly meaningless manipulations of confusing numbers – residential radon. The discussions won’t make some of you happy – but, what can I say? The truth is what it is, without regard for men’s desires (including my own).

The pages include new and updated references, and reflect the current state of scientific thought on the radon issue. My spelling has not improved, and any criticisms along those lines would be appreciated.

The discussions are:

General Discussion on radon – occurrence and risk:
Radon: Truth vs. myth (http://www.forensic-applications.com/radon/radon.html)

And minor revisions to the famous literature review page:

Radon Risk and Cancer
Radon: Risk and Reality (http://www.forensic-applications.com/radon/reviews.html)


Cheers!

CaoimhÃ*n P. Connell
Forensic Industrial Hygienist
Forensic Industrial Hygiene (http://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

[Bruce Breedlove]

This is great information just in time for National Radon Action Month (January).

[A.D. Miller]

legitimate climatologists

CC: And all along I thought you were a scientist.:D


The truth is what it is, without regard for men’s desires (including my own).

CC: "Truth" is not quite that simple to define. Good information on radon though. It mirrors my long-held ideas and spits in the face of the charlatans who test for it.

[Jack Feldmann]

There is a web site for everyone. Got a point to prove? You can find a web site to back you up.
Here's one for you skeptics....
The Flat Earth Society (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org)

[Shawn Price]

So what I'm reading here is that the Centers for Disease Control, Department of Energy, National Academy of Sciences, World Health Organization, Health Physics Society, American Medical Association, Surgeon General, and the Environmental Protection Agency are all wrong and that radon exposure doesn't cause cancer after all? I wonder why the Health Physics Society just revised their radon position paper to be in closer agreement with the EPA risk assessments? :confused:

Gee, and I thought the researchers at Columbia University who authored "Radiation risk to low fluences of alpha particles may be greater than we thought" were credible scientists. You mean that their research that indicates that single alpha particle strikes, like the ones delivered by radon decay products attached to the lung, aren't bad for you after all?

Maybe the Obama administration should log on here when they search for their new Radiation Czar? :rolleyes:

Happy New Year!

Shawn Price

The Radon Information Center (http://radon.com)
Radon-Pro.Com (http://radon-pro.com)

[A.D. Miller]

SP: Remember the WMD? And how about all of those products that are at first approved and are later found to kill people. Do research on the history of DDT, dry cleaning chemicals, etc. ad infinitum.

If your government is not lying to you no one is.:D

[Scott Patterson]

Caoimhín is one of the good guys.

This is his opine on radon. Do I agree with it? No I do not, but over the years Caoimhín has made me think more and more about the problems that are or are not associated with radon.

I respect his opinion, but that does not necessarily mean I agree with all of it.

I have prospective clients calling for radon testing and if I don't offer the service they then move on to the next inspector who does. It is very common for me to find homes with 10+ pCi/L and not uncommon to find homes with 20+ pCi/L in middle TN. To keep my home inspection business going I must offer radon testing in my area. I really do not have a choice as long as the public is demanding it.

[Michael Larson]

SP: Remember the WMD? And how about all of those products that are at first approved and are later dound to kill people. Do research on the history of DDT, dry cleaning chemicals, etc. ad infinitum.

If your government is not lying to you no one is.:DOK (http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/summ02/DDT.html)

Sixty million people have died needlessly of malaria, since the imposition of the 1972 ban on DDT, and hundreds of millions more have suffered from this debilitating disease. The majority of those affected are children. Of the 300 to 500 million new cases of malaria each year, 200 to 300 million are children, and malaria now kills one child every 30 seconds. Ninety percent of the reported cases of malaria are in Africa, and 40 percent of the world’s population, inhabitants of tropical countries, are threatened by the increasing incidence of malaria.

[A.D. Miller]

ML: Please crawl back under that flat rock from whence you came.:D

[Michael Larson]

ML: Please crawl back under that flat rock from whence you came.:DSo did the DDT ban kill anyone or not.

What's your take smart guy?:p

[Ken Bates]

I'm not worried about radon ( I hold my breath when I enter my basement.)

( just kidding- but not a bad idea )

( Our EPA action levels are 4-5 times higher than other nations )

However, I am curious about the continued use of DDT. The ban in USA did not preclude its manufacture and export. It is my understanding that it is still made here and shipped elsewhere. ( e.g. to Chile to be sprayed in the fields where most of the grapes we consume originate from.)

[John Dirks Jr]

The information has made me more aware of the debate on the issue. I won't hide the fact that there is debate.

Even knowing that debate on the subject is active, some persons will still have an interest in knowing (for whatever reason) the radon content in their home.

I can help them find that knowledge. I can do it in a manner that is consistent and accepted by many national and world wide organizations.

Does that make me a charlatan?