Thread: Canada lowers radon action level?

I hear that Canada has lowered action level on radon due to "new research". Anyone know about this and have an opinion on this research?
CaoimhÃ*n?

Similar Threads:

• Mold and/or Radon testing..
• Radon Testing Equipment
• Sun Nuclear Radon Monitors
• CSST Class Action Settlements???

Originally Posted by John Arnold

I hear that Canada has lowered action level on radon due to "new research". Anyone know about this and have an opinion on this research?
Caoimhín?

Canada was already higher than the US, I think they were at 6 pCi/L. If memory serves me correctly they were looking at lowering it to the same as the US, or 4pCi/L. I'm not aware that it has been done.

Hi John:

I haven’t heard anything. Although I get involved in radiation safety issues (hospitals, laboratories, clean-up criteria, etc) and industrial health physics, I don’t much get involved in residential radon issues, and don’t follow the latest news.

Cheers,
CaoimhÃ*n P. Connell
Forensic Industrial Hygienist
Forensic Industrial Hygiene

<SMALL> (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 </SMALL>

p.s.

I sure would like to see a citation for the "new research," though!

C

Here's an article about it:

New threshold for deadly radon gas

Hi John:

Thanks for the reference to the article on radon and risk appearing in The Vancouver Sun.

One has to laugh. The article is the tautology that has turned myth into fact (repeat a falsehood it enough times and it becomes truth).

I will tell you right now:

The article is bunk and represents poor journalism. Why? Because the “journalist� swallowed whole what the journalist was fed and didn’t BOTHER (BOTHER – as in “Couldn’t have bothered his arse�) to go and find the study and read the study and determine if the study really, really said what he now believes.

Since the “journalist� apparently is incapable of properly citing his references, the study in question was in fact, (probably) Residential Radon and Risk of Lung Cancer in Eastern Germany Kreuzer, M; Heinrich, H; Wölke, G; et al, Epi 2003; 14, and which did NOT, NOT, NOT, NOT “found direct evidence of an association between residential radon exposure and lung cancer." I have performed a critical review of that particular study here: Radon: Risk and Reality (listed as Paper Number 3).

The article is bunk and represents poor editing and grammar, to boot: How ‘bout this for a little gem: “A comprehensive scientific study, published in Epidemiology in 2005 and entitled …�

Really? The study was entitled? To what was the study entitled? Perhaps the study was entitled to dribbled down the tie of the lazy “journalist� and his editor. (And for the longest time, I thought Canadians spoke English).

Cheers,

CaoimhÃ*n P. Connell
Forensic Industrial Hygienist
Forensic Industrial Hygiene

<SMALL> (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 </SMALL>

Thanks Caoimh&#237;n.
By the way, I'm reading a book called The Black Swan, which, if you haven't read it already, I bet you'd enjoy. It's by Nassim Nicholas Taleb.

Thanks, John:

I saw a book review on it - I will pick it up.

Cheers!
C