Radon discussion

[civvver]

I never even knew what this was until we sold our home last summer and started building a new one. Well having an anxious wife and young child I bought into the hype. my home came back with a measurement around 5 pcls and we installed a fan system to bring it lower. It's basically a sealed system which draws air from the drain tiles and gravel under the basement subfloor. This drain system is for water normally and it ends up in a reservoir and pumped out of your house by a sump pump. So they just piggy back on that and suck all the air out constantly. It's really low pressure, only half an inch of water. But as long as air is flowing I guess the radioactive stuff can't settle. Now it's undetectable according to an independent lab which basically means it's under 2pcl and they don't determine under that. According to the charts we dropped our risk from about 0.8% of getting cancer to 0.4% or less! I hope I did the match right, it's like 8/1000 to less than 4/1000. Go us!

The charts here have the rates according to the epa:

http://thesmarthomeinspector.com/radon-testing-basics/

Of course that's considering a lifetime exposure, I don't even know what that means! I don't live in my basement which is where the testing was done. My risk was probably like 0% to being with or no higher than just walking outside from time to time. So maybe $800 wasted (that's what the system cost to have installed professionally. The parts are around $400 if you do it yourself).


So anyway all you scientists out there, is this radon thing just a giant scam or a legit health concern? I haven't looked too deeply but came across this one article pointing out a ton of flaws in how the epa measures levels and risks.

http://www.forensic-applications.com/radon/radon.html#Radon Occurrence

What do you think? Is this like the next big health crisis or overblown?

 

[GoodEnoughForMe]

When did you run the measurement? Was the house finished but vacant? I'm not sure about new construction, but I know that oftentimes when the test is being done in a vacant house for sale, the test results are artificially higher because of the lack of traffic in and out of the house. Just the regular opening and closing of doors and windows can lower the rating fairly substantially.

 

[Lexicus]

Radon is definitely potentially dangerous and worrying about it is not just a scam.

I've seen no indication of anything warranting the phrase "next big health crisis" though.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

As stated by GEFM, normal passage in and out should prevent Radon accumulation to anything markedly above environmental level, especially once a little time passes since Radon is formed from decay of other radioisotopes that are present in building materials, and that doesn't continue at significant rates for all that long.

The health risks from low levels of Radon, even with a lifetime of exposure, are pretty comparable to the difference made by increased solar exposure if you live in a high altitude city like Denver...in short, negligible, though measurable so good for scaring people.

 

[civvver]

When did you run the measurement? Was the house finished but vacant? I'm not sure about new construction, but I know that oftentimes when the test is being done in a vacant house for sale, the test results are artificially higher because of the lack of traffic in and out of the house. Just the regular opening and closing of doors and windows can lower the rating fairly substantially.

It was done and we lived in it about five months. We let things kind of settle in. The thing is they measure in the basement cus it's the lowest point of the house and will have the higher levels. We have return air ducts that suck air in from outside and stuff but circulation in the basement is lower than upstairs. so yeah, it's an intentionally elevated reading.

As stated by GEFM, normal passage in and out should prevent Radon accumulation to anything markedly above environmental level, especially once a little time passes since Radon is formed from decay of other radioisotopes that are present in building materials, and that doesn't continue at significant rates for all that long.

The health risks from low levels of Radon, even with a lifetime of exposure, are pretty comparable to the difference made by increased solar exposure if you live in a high altitude city like Denver...in short, negligible, though measurable so good for scaring people.

I pretty much agree with this but sometimes $800 is worth it to put your wife's mind at ease. I'm not a very worrisome person by nature.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I pretty much agree with this but sometimes $800 is worth it to put your wife's mind at ease. I'm not a very worrisome person by nature.

If I could spend 800 bucks and get my gf to stop worrying it would be well spent. She, however, only stops worrying so she has time to worry about something else.

 

[uppi]

What do you think? Is this like the next big health crisis or overblown?

Radon is a risk if encountered in high concentrations. So if you are in an area with a lot of uranium, it might be a good idea to check for it. In your case, 5 pCi/l is less than 200 Bq/m^3 in sane units, which would be a barely detectable risk increase -- if you lived in your basement all your life. I would not worry about it at that level. People have lived in radon-contaminated houses for a long time, so I think we have enough data to be fairly sure about the risks. So it is not going to be a health crisis.

I would say, your effort to reduce radon contamination was probably unnecessary, but not totally absurd. The measurement method might be a it questionable, though. It makes sense to measure the basement, because that is where radon may accumulate, but if you have some uranium laced building materials, there might be other places that are more contaminated. When I was an undergrad, I had to do an experiment with radioactive materials and the grad student showed that the lab was quite safe -- at least compared to the bathroom, which had tiles that seemed to be quite radioactive.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Most cities in the western US have substantial contributions to background radiation from the gravel aggregate in the concrete used for roads, sidewalks, foundations of buildings, etc, etc, etc. This makes Denver Colorado (altitude plus radioactive aggregate) one of the "most dangerous" places to live. Of course five times nil is still nil, at a practical level.

 

[whyidie]

Most cities in the western US have substantial contributions to background radiation from the gravel aggregate in the concrete used for roads, sidewalks, foundations of buildings, etc, etc, etc. This makes Denver Colorado (altitude plus radioactive aggregate) one of the "most dangerous" places to live. Of course five times nil is still nil, at a practical level.

2nd time you've put Denver (current resident) as high risk, add in that I had slightly lower radion readings than OP in an older home. When I'm not in the basement (work from home) I'm outside enjoying the 300 days of sunshine.

Nuts to this, I need a smoke.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

2nd time you've put Denver (current resident) as high risk, add in that I had slightly lower radion readings than OP in an older home. When I'm not in the basement (work from home) I'm outside enjoying the 300 days of sunshine.

Nuts to this, I need a smoke.

No offense meant. It's just a simple function based on the shielding value of 5000 feet of atmosphere.

 

[Bootstoots]

As stated by GEFM, normal passage in and out should prevent Radon accumulation to anything markedly above environmental level, especially once a little time passes since Radon is formed from decay of other radioisotopes that are present in building materials, and that doesn't continue at significant rates for all that long.

The health risks from low levels of Radon, even with a lifetime of exposure, are pretty comparable to the difference made by increased solar exposure if you live in a high altitude city like Denver...in short, negligible, though measurable so good for scaring people.

Radon itself has a half-life of only 4 days, but its decay chain originates with uranium-238, which is fairly common and has a half-life of 4.5 billion years. Uranium-rich soils will also contain trace amounts of all of the decay products of uranium-238, including radium-226 (half-life 1600 years), the immediate predecessor of radon-222. The only thing that really affects the amount of radon that is emitted is the amount of uranium in the rocks and soil you are located on along with the building materials. That said, different houses in the same area can have very different radon levels depending on how porous the foundation is, how much ventilation you have, whether you have a basement, etc.

Circulating air through basements and other low-lying places is still important because radon slowly builds up in unventilated places, eventually reaching a potentially high steady state between inflow from surroundings and decay after a few weeks. Ventilation distributes it so it doesn't reach a high level anywhere.

Overall though it's not something to be too worried about, although it's still a good idea to check it if you're in a high-radon area. You can get a radon test online for like $15, which you leave in the place you're testing for a couple of days and then mail to a lab to have the radon levels read.

Here's a map of the percentage of houses above the EPA maximum of 4 pCi/L. The highest-risk places are in Iowa and southeastern Pennsylvania. I believe the reason in both places is high levels of granite in the soil - granite usually contains fairly high levels of uranium.

Spoiler US radon map :

 

[ls612]

Here's a map of the percentage of houses above the EPA maximum of 4 pCi/L. The highest-risk places are in Iowa and southeastern Pennsylvania. I believe the reason in both places is high levels of granite in the soil - granite usually contains fairly high levels of uranium.

Spoiler US radon map :

You also have to remember that the limit the EPA publishes is a fairly conservative one. That much radon is not going to give you any significant radiation dose compared to the background radiation of Earth. People just get freaked out over the word radiation. The only way radon can be realistically dangerous is if you are a miner spending a lot of time in a mine where the stuff is nearby.

 

[whyidie]

No offense meant. It's just a simple function based on the shielding value of 5000 feet of atmosphere.

Absolutely none taken, although everything in my post is true, annoyance was feigned.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Absolutely none taken, although everything in my post is true, annoyance was feigned.

Cool. Speaking of shielding...one year I calculated that my exposure due to hanging around with a nuclear reactor was actually less than the amount I avoided based on the amount of time I spent with <undisclosed number> feet of seawater between me and the sun.

 

[Birdjaguar]

When we moved to Albuquerque in 1990, the home we rented and really liked, tested high for radon. We felt too high for raising two young kids. And given that it was built on a slab, there was no easy way to ventilate things. So, we bought the house across the street instead. It tested fine.

 

[Bootstoots]

You also have to remember that the limit the EPA publishes is a fairly conservative one. That much radon is not going to give you any significant radiation dose compared to the background radiation of Earth. People just get freaked out over the word radiation. The only way radon can be realistically dangerous is if you are a miner spending a lot of time in a mine where the stuff is nearby.

Definitely. 4 pCi/L is tiny - it's the equivalent of just over 2 atoms of radon decaying per minute per liter of air. Considering that a liter of air has over 10^22 times that many molecules, it's not exactly a big deal. It can still end up becoming a big fraction of background in some fairly rare cases - there have been basements recorded at hundreds or even thousands of pCi/L, and this sort of level does increase lung cancer rates substantially - but at the 5 pCi/L that civvver had, there was nothing to worry about at all.

People in general get way too freaked out over radiation. It's really not dangerous in the sorts of quantities people are likely to get exposed to, which are usually small relative to background radiation. Short of eating a bowl of americium smoke detector sources for breakfast, it's hard to expose yourself to more radiation than you get just from the potassium in your body, let alone a CT scan or something.

I especially liked it when people were freaking out over the Fukushima disaster's cesium-137 reaching the US. The levels being detected were on the order of 1 pCi/L of rainwater, and people seemed to think that this was going to cause everyone to get cancer and/or have defective babies. Something similar happened when those paranoid types found a paper about fish with elevated levels of Cs-137 and Cs-134 appearing off the West Coast. The authors of the paper were using it to trace fish migration patterns and food webs and were quite happy to have a label for tracking fish that had migrated from the waters off Japan or had eaten fish that had.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Then there's Yanango.

You can find the whole story I'm sure, but it boils down to:

"What's that? You say you lost a radiography source? <reaches in pocket> Is this it?"

"Why yes, yes, that's the one. Noooooo, I don't want it. Why don't you go ahead and throw that. Yeah. Far as you can. I'll just watch where it lands. Soooo...what's your take on amputations?"

 

[MagisterCultuum]

From what I've read, in many parts of the country people have more to worry about from a deficit of radiation than from an excess. The health effects of living in areas where radiation is below normal background levels seem to be worse than the effects of living in areas where radiation levels are slightly elevated.

 

[Bootstoots]

Then there's Yanango.

You can find the whole story I'm sure, but it boils down to:

"What's that? You say you lost a radiography source? <reaches in pocket> Is this it?"

"Why yes, yes, that's the one. Noooooo, I don't want it. Why don't you go ahead and throw that. Yeah. Far as you can. I'll just watch where it lands. Soooo...what's your take on amputations?"

Here's a fun Wikipedia article on accidents like that: Radioactive scrap metal.

The worst accident like this was the Goiânia accident in Brazil, which was sort of like the case you mentioned but caused hundreds of serious exposures and four deaths. It's a pretty funny story, if you're into real-life dark comedy. I mean, it's a sad story, but I have a sick sense of humor. So here's how it goes:

Spoiler For fans of radioactive death and mayhem :

A hospital was abandoned, but they left behind a rather large radiotherapy source containing cesium-137. There was supposed to be a security guard watching the abandoned hospital but one day he skipped work without calling in. A couple of thieves broke in and stole the radiotherapy source, which looked like it was valuable. They went home and pried off the shielding, revealing this beautiful blue glowing salt. Of course they fell ill and started vomiting soon, and one of them developed burns on his hand, but they didn't think it was anything to worry about.

They sell it to a scrapyard, whose owner is also fascinated by the beautiful blue glowing stuff. He takes it home and has a bunch of friends and family come to see it. He even puts some of it into a ring and gives it to his wife, and his six-year old niece takes some out and plays with it, making the sign of the cross on her skin and eating a sandwich that had some spilled on it. Then the owner goes and sells it at to a second scrapyard.

Eventually his wife notices that everyone who's come into contact with the blue glowy stuff (including herself) has become violently ill, and manages to go to the other scrapyard and convinces them to sell it back. She scooped it up, put all the glowing powder in a plastic bag, and took it to another hospital, which made for a very interesting day for the visiting medical physicist with a scintillation counter.

Four people died slowly and painfully over the next month: the 6-year-old girl (obviously), the wife who actually figured out that the glowy powder was bad and had it tested, and two scrapyard workers who tried extracting various metals from the source. Both of the thieves and the scrapyard owner suffered serious radiation poisoning but survived; the owner actually received the highest dose of anyone, but it was more fractionated and he managed to pull through. He would die an alcoholic a few years later. 249 people were found to have significant amounts of Cs-137 on or in their bodies, of whom 16 in total were hospitalized but survived along with the four deaths. It was spread all over the place, and this was made even worse by the extreme water-solubility of cesium chloride. A massive cleanup effort managed to get about 7/8 of the Cs-137 in all.

 

[Thorgalaeg]

Radon can be a real danger since it tends to cumulate in closed places (well not radon itself which lives few days only but the other elements it decays into, like polonium). I worked in a study about radon back in the university and at some houses radiation level was 100s of times the healthy level. The real danger is to build a house with a badly isolated and above all badly ventilated basement on any terrain with some uranium or radium which is the source of radom, if you leave such basement closed by a month or two radiation can reach incredibly high levels. I remember particullarly the basement of a bank. Man it was dangerous to be down there.