Home Page link

DANGER: RADON

Home| Search | About
Login Password
Register Now! Lost Password?

Home Repair - - If it ain't broken, don't fix it. Otherwise look here. 

Page 2 of 6       < 1 2 3 > last >> Bookmark this page:  YahooMyWeb Yahoo!  Google Google  Windows Live Favorites Windows Live  del.icio.us del.icio.us  digg digg  Add to Netscape Netscape
Subject Author Date
DANGER: RADON Yeung Fun Ho 07-15-2005
---> Re: DANGER: RADON Edwin Pawlowski07-15-2005
---> Re: DANGER: RADON George E. Cawth...07-15-2005
| |--> Re: DANGER: RADON Vicki Szaszvari07-16-2005
If you were  Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
Posted by Curly Sue on July 17, 2005, 1:39 pm


On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 07:18:14 -0500, Vic Dura

>On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 03:04:24 GMT, in alt.home.repair RE: Re: DANGER:
>
>>They state:
>>What Are the Effects of Radon?
>>
>>
>> Miners exposed to high radon levels have been found to run an
>>increased risk of lung cancer. Radon in the home also presents a risk, but
>>generally at a lower level.
>
>These studies were done in the 1950s and 1960s. Most (if not all) of
>the miners where also heavy smokers. So many were smokers, that they
>couldn't get a significant sample if they excluded smokers, so they
>had to keep them in the sample. They compared the lung cancer rate of
>the miners/smokers to the lung cancer rate of smokers-only. (They did
>not consider the amount of smoking. I've never seen stats, but my
>observations of miners as a group is that they are far heavier smokers
>than the populaton at large.) The difference was very small, and many
>researchers judged it to be statistically insignificant and the
>studies non-conclusive.

Where have you been? They didn't stop studying radon in the 60s. If
studies are non-conclusive, it means they (or the analyses) are
"non-conclusive," not that it's the end of the story. "Statistically
insignificant" can have as much to do with the design of a study as
with biological reality.

Do a simple literature search and take note of studies as recent as
this year; you're going to be surprized that the conclusions have
changed. The issue is not resolved by any means, particularly with
dosage, length of exposure (eg. lifetime risk of exposed children vs.
risk of adults exposed later in life), and degree of risk. But the
fact that it's a difficult issue to study doesn't mean that there is
no danger.

Sue(tm)
Lead me not into temptation... I can find it myself!


Posted by Doug Kanter on July 18, 2005, 2:05 pm



> On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 07:18:14 -0500, Vic Dura
>
>>On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 03:04:24 GMT, in alt.home.repair RE: Re: DANGER:
>>
>>>They state:
>>>What Are the Effects of Radon?
>>>
>>>
>>> Miners exposed to high radon levels have been found to run an
>>>increased risk of lung cancer. Radon in the home also presents a risk,
>>>but
>>>generally at a lower level.
>>
>>These studies were done in the 1950s and 1960s. Most (if not all) of
>>the miners where also heavy smokers. So many were smokers, that they
>>couldn't get a significant sample if they excluded smokers, so they
>>had to keep them in the sample. They compared the lung cancer rate of
>>the miners/smokers to the lung cancer rate of smokers-only. (They did
>>not consider the amount of smoking. I've never seen stats, but my
>>observations of miners as a group is that they are far heavier smokers
>>than the populaton at large.) The difference was very small, and many
>>researchers judged it to be statistically insignificant and the
>>studies non-conclusive.
>
> Where have you been? They didn't stop studying radon in the 60s. If
> studies are non-conclusive, it means they (or the analyses) are
> "non-conclusive," not that it's the end of the story. "Statistically
> insignificant" can have as much to do with the design of a study as
> with biological reality.
>
> Do a simple literature search and take note of studies as recent as
> this year; you're going to be surprized that the conclusions have
> changed. The issue is not resolved by any means, particularly with
> dosage, length of exposure (eg. lifetime risk of exposed children vs.
> risk of adults exposed later in life), and degree of risk. But the
> fact that it's a difficult issue to study doesn't mean that there is
> no danger.
>
> Sue(tm)
> Lead me not into temptation... I can find it myself!

Ever notice how many people roll their eyes in disgust when you ask them if
they took a class in statistics or research methods in college? This
explains a lot of trends in society, including the reason opinion polls
carry so much weight with the simpleminded, and why scientific research
often falls on deaf ears.




Posted by George E. Cawthon on July 15, 2005, 9:51 pm


Yeung Fun Ho wrote:
>>Can anyone recommend any cheapo DIY ideas on how to exhaust heat from
>>an attic in a house?
>
>
>
> unlike some of the folks here, who are forgetting a very important point,
> let me remind you of something:
>
> many places in the USA have high RADON levels
> (RADON, a colorless, odorless gas, is the 2nd leading cause of lung cancer,
> after smoking)
>
> many of the solutions that are typically presented in this group involve
> exhausting attic heat via a fan, turbine, etc.

True, but many places have no problem with radon.
Besides, the solution is generally simple and
inexpensive. (Of course there are "fixers" who
will insist that very expensive solutions are
necessary). Before anyone gets excited, check
with local health or other organizations for
radon in the local soils.

>
> most of these are "negative pressure" solutions, i.e. they suck air out in
> order to exhaust the unwanted heat
>
> this will cause RADON to be sucked IN to your home from the ground

Almost any attic ventilation solution requires air
inlets and outlets. A fan that blows out requires
air inlets, either openings in the end gables or
openings in the soffits. As a result, very little
negative pressure will be developed. In any case,
negative pressure in the attic won't have any
effect on Radon in the house unless the attic is
tied to the rest of the house, the basement, or
the crawlspace and that isn't the case in most
houses (it may be the case with a whole house
fan). For radon to be a problem, radon has to
infiltrate the house from the soil. That may
occur from a basement or crawl space, but not from
an attic.




Posted by on July 15, 2005, 3:20 pm


George,
I generally agree with you.
However, I hear from some some researchers that is is often the case
that there are connecting paths up through the house structure.

YFH might want to look at the Building Science Corporation web site.

TB



Posted by George E. Cawthon on July 16, 2005, 4:22 am


tbasc@bellsouth.net wrote:
> George,
> I generally agree with you.
> However, I hear from some some researchers that is is often the case
> that there are connecting paths up through the house structure.
>
> YFH might want to look at the Building Science Corporation web site.
>
> TB
>

True, with balloon framing used in old houses. I
would worry more about fires than Radon with such
construction.

Not true with modern house construction.


Page 2 of 6       < 1 2 3 > last >>
Similar ThreadsPosted
Is my house at danger? October 26, 2005, 11:21 am
AMERICA IN DANGER! August 7, 2006, 1:49 pm
Old television danger? September 23, 2007, 5:25 pm
Wood Mulch Danger? April 16, 2006, 5:49 pm
Wood stove chimney danger - help please July 17, 2006, 2:37 am
Tile Perfect Grout Sealer danger March 8, 2006, 10:13 am
AMERICA IN DANGER: Secret Torture Rooms July 11, 2006, 4:04 pm
Danger from sewer gas when soldering copper drain? October 21, 2007, 11:44 am
Car's "air-bag" light stays on. (danger or just 10-degree-F temp?) January 26, 2007, 8:54 pm
Radon...what would you do? May 17, 2006, 2:46 pm

Contact Us | Privacy Policy

XML SitemapXML Sitemap