Debunking the myths of radon hazards

[Les]

When the margaritas glow in the dark, RADON in the water!

[Jim Morrison]

Well, we don't do it, and I'd be surprised if anyone did.

[Niton]

Gary,

Pooling is quite different than meta analyses.

Gary, the North American Pooling pdfs are quite large, feel free to email me directly and I would be happy to send them as attachments. The European Pooling can be found here - http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/330/7485/223

others, please identify yourself to eliminate needless concerns and unwarranted egregious attacks.

just the facts!

[kurt]

I sort of understand the statistical significance of meta-analysis (well, I could recite the general definition found in Wikipedia), and the term pooling brings up vague memories of classes I detested.

I wouldn't be able to interpret either relative to radon studies. Is there any means for me to read this stuff and understand it? Or, would anyone be willing to interpret for me?

Or, have you already?

[Niton]

Pooling combines the raw data from each study, while meta-analyses combines (often weighted) summary results. The Pooled European and North American Studies found an increased lung cancer risk with prolonged exposure even below the EPA's action level. A global pooling of radon studies is underway right now as well that combines these two data sources. The 4 pCi/L level is not a health based standard like the groundwater standards, If it were a health based standard, the standard (applied like other environmental standards) would be closer to 0.4 pCi/L.

[Terence McCann]

I take a very simplistic view when it comes to Radon, let me explain.

I started smoking cigarettes when I was in the 5th grade which would have been 1965. At the height of my smoking career I was up to about 3 packs a day. I was at this level for a good 20 years or more. In 1991 I quit cold turkey.

Now my father smoked up to the day he died, my mother did quit about 10 years before she passed away (smoked for a good 40 years) and my sister, who is 60, still smokes. My sister smokes around 2+ packs a day and has done so all of her adult life. No one in my family has passed away from any form of cancer. My grandfather was a big pipe and cigar smoker as well but died from heart failure.

Now if I continued to smoke would I develop lung cancer? Who knows? If I could answer that I’d be playing the lottery. Will my sister develop lung cancer? Again, who knows?

I’ve never personally taken a cigarette to a laboratory to have it analyzed to find out what is in cigarette smoke however; I do believe that it’s bad for your health. I also believe that it causes lung cancer and emphysema to name a few. Are there studies out there that show that smoking is ok? I wouldn’t doubt it but I never really looked though

Should we banter around quantity? Surely smoking 1 pack a day can’t hurt can it? How about just 10 cigarettes a day? Ok, just 2 a day. The fact is it’s not good for you so why do it at all?

In regards to Radon I believe that it is exactly what it is classified as: A colorless, odorless radioactive gas. I think we all know that being around a radioactive environment is not conducive to one’s longevity. Will I end up getting lung cancer from being in a Radon rich environment? I don’t know. Will my customers end up with lung cancer from being in a Radon rich environment? Again, who knows?

The point is, like smoking, why subject yourself to it all? We have a fairly inexpensive means of ridding a home of Radon so why not advise your clients. If you want to banter around what amounts of Radon should trigger that decision, why bother?

Smoking just a few cigarettes a day is OK right?

[ozofprev]

Originally posted by Niton

Gary,

Pooling is quite different than meta analyses.

True, and I understand what you say (later) about meta analysis being weighted, but done correctly, the 'weighting' objectively accounts for errors in the raw data and collection techniques.

The link you provided is funded by cancer research and includes a statement that the cancer funding had nothing to do with the report. Ok, I can trust the academicians on that, but the report still shows nothing new. It states in bullet form precisely what it adds to the knowledge base. This is what the report itself claims to add:

1. ... strong evidence of an association between the radon concentration at home and lung cancer

2. The dose-response relation seemed to be linear, with no evidence of a threshold dose, and there was a significant dose-response relation even below currently recommended action levels.

3. Absolute risk to smokers is much greater.

4. Radon accounts for about 9% of lung cancers.

I have seen all of this. Radon, bad. There is no magic threshold number, even though some have been manufactured by governments. That's fine, governments do that with toxic things like pesticides, carcinogens, friable material, etc...

Gary, the North American Pooling pdfs are quite large, feel free to email me directly and I would be happy to send them as attachments. The European Pooling can be found here - http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/330/7485/223

Thanks, but no.

others, please identify yourself to eliminate needless concerns and unwarranted egregious attacks.

just the facts!

So, you are not also Michael F???id="green">

[hausdok]

Originally posted by Niton

others, please identify yourself to eliminate needless concerns and unwarranted egregious attacks.

just the facts!

Maybe I should point out that you left your own name off that post. If you expect others to identify themselves to you, please extend members of the board the same courtesy.

ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!!

Mike O'Handley

Editor - TIJ

[hausdok]

Originally posted by Fumento

I really thought radon inspectors were smarter than they have appeared on the list. So many are like sheep not thinking for themselves, but following the thoughts of self-professed "forensic" toxicologist. The guy is a hack for hire.

From his postings it is clear he has little experience in epidemiology. All I ask is that you go to Pubmed http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi

and then search for radon. Amazing how all these scientists are wrong and only our forensic toxicologist friend is right.

This guy is making fools of you. Several lists have linked to this site and the list members can not believe how gullible you are. At least some inspectors get it. The guy is a nut case.

Members of the board should know that this guy might be making fools of you - not Caoimhin. I've received an email from someone claiming to be the real Michael Fumento, who says that the fellow who posted the above was not him.

I invited him to register here under another user name, so that I could check his IP address against that of the fellow who made the post above, but he declined.

I was tempted to delete the post, but until I can confirm that this fellow is not who he claims to be, I'll leave it up. It did, after all, stimulate some more discussion, although at this point I think the discussion has gone far afield of what home inspectors need to know.

We're not scientists. We're nuts and bolts kinds of guys. Give us parameters and a means to check them, we do it. The why or how is interesting, but the minutia of the why isn't really relevant to what we do.

ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!!

Mike

[ordasea]

Hausdoc.

I provided links to the studies which are in their entirety in most cases available in a PDF file format. I am only posting as ordasea not any other name as indicated by Caoimhín P. Connell. I'm sure that you have ways of verifying this via IP address. I merely provided info. Not personal attacks.

Thanks Very Much,

Wallace O Dorsey Jr.

Radon-Ease, Inc.

Since 1987

www.radonease.com

Originally posted by ordasea

Alzheimer’s & Parkinson’s – Could the Cause be Radon?

PDF - Detailed Study Results

http://www.radonnews.org/pages/Alzeheim ... nsons.html

In a study conducted at the University of North Dakota, researchers discovered that the presence of radioactive radon daughters in the brains of non-smoking persons with Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s disease was 10 times greater than it was in the brains of persons with no previous evidence of neurological disorders. Professor Glenn Lykken and Dr. Berislav Momcilovic assert their study demonstrates that indoor radon gas has the capacity to irreversibly infest the brain with the poisonous progeny of radioactive heavy metals.

University of North Dakota researchers are looking for more funding to continue their research. To access the study in its entirety, please go to www.radonnews.org or the Alzheimer Disease and Associated Disorders Magazine. Contact: Professor G.I. Lykken at UND at (701) 777 – 3519.

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jun2005 ... -22-02.asp

20 Countries Act to Repel Deadly Radioactive Radon Gas

GENEVA, Switzerland, June 22, 2005 (ENS) - Exposure to a natural radioactive gas in the home and workplace causes tens of thousands of deaths from lung cancer each year, the World Health Organization (WHO) said Tuesday. Recent results from the largest radon studies ever conducted in North America and Europe show six to 15 percent of all lung cancers are caused by exposure to the gas.