Science Matters October 24 , 2023
Radon
BACKGROUND
Radon is a gas usually found in soil. It is a radioactive decay product of naturally occur-ring trace amounts of uranium. Radon is emitted from every square centimeter of the soil everywhere on earth, every second of every day. Virtually, every house on the planet has radon particles.
HEALTH CONCERNS
Radon itself is not responsible for health problems but rather its particles briefly ex-posed during decay, called “short-lived radon daughters (SLRD). These SLRD are air-borne and when mixed in a dusty environment are actually less likely to cause harm be-cause they are bound to larger dust. In relatively dust-free environments, these SLRD are more likely to stick to the walls of a home or in theory stick to the “walls” inside the lungs. Based upon radioactive exposure during the atomic bomb and other industrial ac-cidents, there is no question that Radon increases the risk of lung cancer. (Although only one study specifically with Radon offers proof and this was done in Miners who smoke in whom only a 10% study sample was used (so the science is confounded and therefore of poor quality). So, the real question is for non-miners living in modern homes, how much Radon must one be exposed to in order for it to create a health risk?
SCIENCE & the HEALTH PHYSICS SOCIETY
“There are no scientific studies that have ever shown that radon gas as typically seen in houses increases the risk of cancer.” The Health Physics Society states “risks of health effects are either too small to be observed or they are non-existent.”
POLITICS
So why if radon (SLRD) does not pose a significant health risk in levels found in houses are there requirements for radon measurements, fear of cancer, and an entire industry measuring and making recommendations concerning radon in your home? The EPA and the National Research Council (NRC) are not scientific bodies, but rather political enti-ties which have distorted the science around radon in homes and buildings.
The EPA invented a new unit measurement for radon which is a very tenuous estimate based on multiple assumptions which most scientists reject. One assumption was a lin-ear model of exposure as well as an arbitrary minimal exposure amount. They ignored the complexity of the science and perpetuated a make-believe industry of radon meas-urement and “treatments”. While one hand of the government has sent out this alarm, the US Government publication concerning radon states , Currently, there is very little information about the health effects associated with exposure to radon on levels be-lieved to be commonly encountered in the public.”
Interestingly, no one going into homes to inspect is actually measuring radon! Various tools are used to measure surrogates of radon with a lot of assumptions. Just a few of these variables include sample size error, barometric pressure, air conditioner off or on; air filters, outdoor temperature, recent rain, wind direction, time of year etc.
*The confidence intervals (variance) is so wide for any tool used to approximate radon levels in a home. There're NO CHANCES a radon inspector can be accurate with any percision—much less that the random cut-off created by the EPA has any meaning with regard to health.
references
1. Mossman kl et al. “radiation risk in perspective—health physics society position state-ment” health physics newsletter 1996 (updated May 2016).
2. Connell, c. (forensic industrial hygienist) “radon-a brief discussion”.