Debunking the myths of radon hazards

[Caoimhín P. Connnell]

Hello Ladies and Gents:

Over the last several months, I have received comments from various quarters, expressing the opinion that information on our radon page is outdated and incorrect.

These critics have opined that there is a scientific consensus that residential exposures to radon causes cancer, and that it is, essentially, a proven fact. In reality, that simply is not true, and there is not a single valid study on the Planet Earth that has made such a proof.

Some of these folks have offered, as their proof, three recent scientific peer reviewed papers which they believe support their opinions.

I have provided an independent review of those papers on a new web site located at:

http://forensic-applications.com/radon/reviews.html

Please feel free to report any typos and the like.

Cheers!
Caoimhín P. Connell
Forensic Industrial Hygienist
www.forensic-applications.com

 

[Terrel L. Shields]

Lots and lots of myths. If I recall from memory, radon was identified as a potential problem from miners in Colorado & Utah's uranium mines developing cancer. One town was dubbed the "town without grandfathers"...The concentrations were much much higher than any typical house could hold..
But gee it sure makes a good horror story, right?

 

[JT1974]

I had heard that many of Colorado's roads were built with rock from Uranium mines and that is one of the reasons why CO has higher levels of radon in basements. Could be just another myth. Anyone else heard of this?

 

[Mike Boyd]

I have heard that radon gas is a natural occuring phenonemon and that it is virtually everywhere. I have yet to see "radon masks" for sale.

 

[Hal Mann]

In my area, it seems that radon is virtually nonexistant on Long Island, but quite common in New Jersey.

In terms of the appraisal of real estate, it really doesn't matter whether or not radon actually has deleterious health effects, it matters only that it is perceived to have a negative impact. In this regard it is completely analogous to mold. There's no proof that mold is harmful either, but it is commonly perceived to be a problem. Therefore both continue to have a (sometimes profound) impact on values.

 

[JoTetherow]

i agree

i never believed those stories about radon.

i believe it started in pennsylvania. some atomic plant worker went into work and his radiation badge set off the detectors on his way IN to his job. an investigation showed that he was getting more rads from his home than he was at work.

not too much radon in my neck of the woods (western NY) but the frightened homeowners still have the houses checked.

my take on it all was from when i worked in the mckeesport PA area in the 80's. there were all these old widows, husbands that had worked in the steel mills were long dead. the widows, now very, very old would close themselves up in their houses, no windows open, no ventilation and they stil lived on and on and on. seems to me that if radon was such a big problem there wouldnt have been so many elderly widows...

j

 

[Mr Rex]

A simple question. Would Mr C take any remedial measures in his own home were it found to have elevated levels of radon and at what level would he recommend remediation, if any?

 

[Mike Garrett RAA]

I usually say "I have never known anyone who died from Radon" to my students but does that prove it isn't hazardous to your health?

 

[Caoimhín P. Connnell]

Good morning, Gents –

Some good comments, questions and criticisms concerning my comments about radon.

Hal Mann:

Comment:
In terms of the appraisal of real estate, it really doesn't matter whether or not radon actually has deleterious health effects, it matters only that it is perceived to have a negative impact.

Response:
100% Agreement. Several years ago, I used to teach a toxicology section that included the concept of risk. As part of the class, I used a very profound article from The Economist which compared the cost of mitigating risks, versus the actual risks that were mitigated. (“America’s Parasite Economy: The Papers that Ate America” ECONOMIST, Oct. 10, 1992). What they showed was that Americans had absolutely no interest in mitigating REAL risks. Rather, Americans were madly in love with mitigating PERCEIVED risks, especially emotional ones, with legislation that largely did little to save lives and whose costs were wildly disproportionate with the real risks involved. I see that two states are currently attempting to pass radon legislation based almost exclusively on myth – entirely ignoring the body of science that would place radon exposures far, far, far below the risks of death from public swimming pools, bicycles, or children choking on carrots.

Mr.Rex
Question:
A simple question. Would Mr C take any remedial measures in his own home were it found to have elevated levels of radon and at what level would he recommend remediation, if any?

Response:
In light of the comment and response above, which underscores the importance of perception over reality, we should start by asking: “Is this a valid question?” Further, what would qualify my answer as authoritative?

Real risk, safety, perceived risk, peril, threat, and exposure – these are not synonyms. But in this society, perceived risk is more important than real risk and therefore safety.

Safety, (the acceptance of a specific risk level) is a personal choice. As a cop, I regularly go willingly into buildings full of armed bad-guys intent on killing me just to make a couple of arrests… Yet, I would be terrified to get on a rollercoaster of which nobody has ever died (and would rather face down a gun than do it) … so what would I know about safety (putting risk into perspective).

However, just yesterday, an home inspector posted the exact same question to me. Unlike your question, he defined “elevated level” as 17 pCi/L. Here was my response:

Consider the following two facts: 1) Every legitimate study thus published to date indicates that a house with a radon concentration of 17 pC/L would result in a cancer risk that is LOWER than house with one pC/L; 2) The US EPA (after being horribly ridiculed in the global scientific community) has backed off it’s recommendations and would now tell the US public that if their house contains 17pC/L they probably should think about maybe doing something about it in the next several years …. Yes, I could easily sleep comfortably at night for the next two or three decades without addressing the radon in that house (along with my kids, and grand kids).

We ALL agree that HIGH levels of radon cause cancer. However, we almost NEVER, NEVER see those kinds of radon levels in houses – we typically see pretty low concentrations, well below 200 pCi/L. So when someone panics because they have 20 pCi/L in their house, they are panicking over a very low (toxicologically insignificant) concentration. Now, last week I had a call from a guy in Conifer, Colorado who had 38,000 pCi/L. OK… now that’s high, and I recommended that he fix that. Remember: the dose makes the poison, and 99.99% of all houses don’t have an high enough radon dose to make a poison.

Thanks for the opportunity to participate in your forum.

Cheers,
Caoimhín P. Connell
Forensic Industrial Hygienist
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

 

[Jeff Deuitch]

In my area, it seems that radon is virtually nonexistant on Long Island, but quite common in New Jersey.

In terms of the appraisal of real estate, it really doesn't matter whether or not radon actually has deleterious health effects, it matters only that it is perceived to have a negative impact. In this regard it is completely analogous to mold. There's no proof that mold is harmful either, but it is commonly perceived to be a problem. Therefore both continue to have a (sometimes profound) impact on values.

Agreed to an extent. What has provided the "mold-Scare" movement a reason to believe is that fungal organisms can and do occasionally cause human illness.

Organisms such as Candida albicans, Cryptococcus, and other infectious fungi can cause serious illnesses in people under certain conditions.

Additionally, some common indoor fungi can produce toxins under specific conditions. Species (actually not true species but form-species) such as Aspergillus flavus, Penicillium citrii, Stachybotrys chartarum, and many others can and do produce powerful toxins. But so do bacteria resident to raw chicken, stagnant water in drains etc The problem is that the reporting of these organisms and toxins is often done in such a manner that promotes fear. In the case of very large mold outbreaks where airborne spore levels are off the chart, I do think it is best for people to avoid extended stays in those environments. However, the level of concern I routinely see in cases of modest mold growth is hard to believe.

The effect that this can have on marketability or real estate is indeed real and I agree that the perception of a problem can be much worse than a real problem. It is hard to imagine until you are involved with a very contentious case and you see the conviction of belief that some people have. Best to understand the conviction than to contest it, otherwise you as an appraiser may wind up in the cross hairs. Don't underestimate this effect. I have seen it both from the perspective of an appraiser and an environmental scientist.

Regards.

Express yourself on the Indoor Air Quality Forum