SLRDs vs. Radon measurements

[ozofprev]

Very frustrating. You would think the "2nd largest cause of lung cancer" would warrant some valid studies. Thanks Caoimhín.

[Scottpat]

Didn't the Canadian government do fairly recent study on radon and how it impacts the body? I seem to recall hearing about it or reading about it last year.

I find it hard to believe that other nations have not done any studies on radon, or have they and we are not aware of them for some reason.

[Caoimhín P. Connell]

Good morning, Gents:

Kurt –

Who is Mr. O? Oh, and you can repeat/reprint anything I say.

Mike-

Its not that the government is lying to anyone, per se. For example, within the EPA studies and public documents they very “clearlyâ€

[ozofprev]

Caoimhín,

It's all a very fascinating look at populations and their governments. The tricks - like equating 20 pCi/L to 4 cigarettes - don't surprise me. And lawyers scare the bejeezus out of most people.

What is separate from all of these studies is the concept of individual differences. One person will contract lung cancer after six months of smoking one cigarette/day while another will live 110 years smoking a pack a day. Many drugs work only for people with certain genes - hell, even smelly urine after eating asparagus is genetic.

In another thread, we are actually discussing arsenic found in horse hair that might exist in plaster! It's absurd, but because of the lawyers and greedy clients, we have to know the facts.

Thank you for sharing your experience with us. I find it enlightening.

[hausdok]

Originally posted by Caoimh? P. Connell

Good morning, Gents:

Kurt ?

Who is Mr. O?

Uh, that'd be me - Michael Patrick Joseph Aloysius O'Handley. And you thought you had a mouthful.

OT - OF!!!

M.

[hausdok]

So, Caoimhín

Are you a smoker?

OT - OF!!!

M.

[ozofprev]

You can smoke 4 a day with no ill-effect, you know. EPA says so!

[Brandon Chew]

I've been following this thread and Caoimhín has been doing so well I thought there was not a lot I could add to the discussion until now.

Having worked as an environmental engineer in a government regulatory agency for more than twenty years, I've witnessed a lot of sausage being made. Even when you begin with "good science", what comes out of the other end of "the machine" in the name of good policy can be barely recognizable. Sure, if you take the time to read the label, it will usually truthfully list the ingredients, but ...

[Caoimhín P. Connell]

Mike -

Here's a rare photo of the snorkle.

Oh, and Brandon, thank you for your service - yours was a hard and thankless slog indeed. But your service is appreciated.

Caoimhín

[ozofprev]

That was funny. The snorkle is retired???

[ozofprev]

Originally posted by Brandon Chew

I've been following this thread and Caoimhín has been doing so well I thought there was not a lot I could add to the discussion until now.

I thought you might lend a hand, but then I remembered.

[:-party]

[Caoimhín P. Connell]

Gary -

No - I put my risks into perspective. So, I still enjoy smoking my pipe when I am outdoors - especially while fishing.

Cheers!

Caoimhín

[ollie]

RADON IS BOGUS? This is really confusing.

On one side I have The American Cancer Society, The American Lung Association, The EPA, The AMA, and a host of Universities that say radon is bad.

The other side is a full time peace officer and some guys on the web say it is a bunch of bull.

A radioactive gas that decays into a form of lead is bad for you? The next thing they are going to say that excess exposure to the sun is bad for you.

The study methods are flawed. There are no scientific human lab tests. Apparently it is considered unethical to put humans in unsafe environments and see the health affects. Although I did read about some guy in Europe doing human testing in the 1940's and some VD testing at a southern university a few years back. On an inspection once, I had a highly educated fellow explain the facts on radon to me. As he explained the flawed study methods used, my only response was " Yeah that's the same method they use to prove smoking is bad for you". He lit up like a Christmas tree, " Exactly these are the same studies that say smoking is causes lung cancer". My response was " if you don't believe smoking causes lung cancer, then you should not believe radon causes lung cancer".The study methods are the same. Yes, the figures of death rates for both are wild-eye guesses.

My father has smoked for 50 years and has yet to get cancer. My mother smoked for 20 years, quit for 10 years then died of lung cancer. Why my father lives and my mother died, I do not know. Do I believe smoking was a considerable factor in my mothers death, YES. Do I believe everyone that lives in a high radon environment ( or smoke filled) will get lung cancer, no. Do I believe high radon levels can affect your chances of getting lung cancer, YES.

When I question many studies, I often look for the peoples or the organizations motives. For example smoking studies may have been eschewed by the tobacco industry for financial considerations. Where is that financial consideration? I don't see the big bucks in the radon testing and mitigation business. The real estate industry does not like this talk and I do see their financial interest.

With in the last year I have done inspections for 3 Oncologists, one a professor at our local medical school. All 3 believed in radon testing. All 3 believed that radon is a major factor in lung cancer risk.

If radon is not going to kill you from lung cancer, it may cause ill affects from the stress when your house won't sell. Disclosure is a real concern around here. If a seller, especially in this market, won't re-mediate they are a fool. In every home inspection, I lay out all the real concerns that will effect the homes use and safety. Then I explain the concerns that are not real to the home, but that is likely to effect them at sale.

As for the test being unreliable, our whole business is just a snapshot in time . What I say about a house is only fully valid that day. Why test wells for coliform, it's only valid at the moment of the test. Reality, all inspections are only valid at the moment they are done while being dependent on the tester and their equipment. About 20 years ago, when I first started home inspection, I received the same argument about home inspections and their value.

I had many of your attitudes for the first ten plus years of my home inspection career. I always considered myself and educated man of science from a family of educated scientists. I went to the 16 hour class on radon convinced it was a bunch of ########.

I was wrong, it is a valid issue. The more you educated yourself the more flaws you find in much of our scientific data. That does not invalidate science, welcome to the real world. Don't be a member of the OJ jury, really educate yourself. Go to the real classes put on by experts and universities. I have a great deal of respect for Caoimhin P. Connell as a full-time peace officer and I have been to his website. For now I will believe the AMA, The American Cancer Society, The American Lung Association, The EPA, and a host of others on radon. Mr. Connell on the traffic laws of Colorado.

Thanks this has been amusing.

Ollie

[Caoimhín P. Connell]

Hi Ollie!

I responded to your comments at:

https://www.inspectorsjournal.com/forum ... 6595#54496

Cheers,

Caoimhín