Radon myths and units - InterNACHI · 2013. 10. 8. · annually from radon induced lung cancer, 150% higher than their 1994 estimate. However, scientists are increasingly suspicious

Radon myths and units - InterNACHI

http://www.nachi.org/bbsystem/viewtopic.php?t=12143&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0[10/8/2013 8:42:20 AM]

Radon myths and units

Search the Forum Archive

NACHI.ORG Forum Index -> Additional Inspection Discussion

Go to page: Previous 1 2 Next

These message board pages are now for archival purposes only. Please visit http://www.nachi.org/forum/

for our most recent forum discussions.


Author Message

Caoimhín P. Connell

NACHI

Member: No

(as of

3/25/07)

Posts: 108

Posted: May 1, 2005 10:13 AM Post Subject:

Please Note: This user is a non-member guest and is in no way affiliated with NACHI.

Hello Mr. Sutrina –

I am new to this site. I am not an home inspector, rather I am a Forensic Industrial Hygienist. Some of the response you received are correct, some are quite entirely incorrect.

To answer your question – the “scale” of which you speak and run into the hundreds, thousands or even millions. The upper limit would practically (but not physically) be where an atmosphere contains 100% radon that is in “dynamic equilibrium” (wherein the amount of radon being decayed is instantly being replaced with “fresh radon.”) Concentrations of tens of thousands of pCi/l is not uncommon in ground water.

Regarding some of the response regarding risk and radon the comment that ALL exposure is unacceptable is simply untrue, and believe it or not, the risk is U-shaped with regard to exposure, and there is what is known as an “hormetic” effect (some apparent benefit from exposure). In fact most of the popular information I have seen coming from Home Inspectors on radon is very sparse on science and very big on myth. In truth, ALL humans are daily

Inspection NewsLatest Inspection News

Inspection Success Strategies

Inspection Forum

Inspection Articles

Inspection Events

InterNACHI Blog

InterNACHI MembershipMembership Benefits

Membership Application

Renew Your Membership

Inspection StandardsResidential Standards of Practice

Commercial Standards of Practice

Code of Ethics

Inspection EducationInspection Courses

Continuing Education

InterNACHI FORUM MEMBERSHIP & BENEFITS MORE

http://www.nachi.org/bbsystem/search.php?PHPSESSID=5b43bbef1af082c0e887c352e4685f15

http://www.nachi.org/bbsystem/search.php?PHPSESSID=5b43bbef1af082c0e887c352e4685f15

http://www.nachi.org/bbsystem/index.php?PHPSESSID=5b43bbef1af082c0e887c352e4685f15

http://www.nachi.org/bbsystem/viewforum.php?f=26&PHPSESSID=5b43bbef1af082c0e887c352e4685f15

http://www.nachi.org/bbsystem/viewtopic.php?t=12143&start=20&PHPSESSID=5b43bbef1af082c0e887c352e4685f15


http://www.nachi.org/forum/

http://www.inspectorseek.com/


http://www.nachi.org/whats_new.htm?PHPSESSID=5b43bbef1af082c0e887c352e4685f15

http://www.nachi.org/whats_new.htm?PHPSESSID=5b43bbef1af082c0e887c352e4685f15

http://www.nachi.org/success.htm?PHPSESSID=5b43bbef1af082c0e887c352e4685f15

http://www.nachi.org/success.htm?PHPSESSID=5b43bbef1af082c0e887c352e4685f15

http://www.nachi.org/forum/?PHPSESSID=5b43bbef1af082c0e887c352e4685f15

http://www.nachi.org/articles.htm?PHPSESSID=5b43bbef1af082c0e887c352e4685f15

http://www.nachi.org/events.htm?PHPSESSID=5b43bbef1af082c0e887c352e4685f15

http://www.nachi.org/blog/

http://www.nachi.org/benefits.htm?PHPSESSID=5b43bbef1af082c0e887c352e4685f15

http://www.nachi.org/membership.htm?PHPSESSID=5b43bbef1af082c0e887c352e4685f15


http://www.nachi.org/selfrenewalsystem.htm?PHPSESSID=5b43bbef1af082c0e887c352e4685f15

http://www.nachi.org/selfrenewalsystem.htm?PHPSESSID=5b43bbef1af082c0e887c352e4685f15

http://www.nachi.org/sop.htm?PHPSESSID=5b43bbef1af082c0e887c352e4685f15

http://www.nachi.org/sop.htm?PHPSESSID=5b43bbef1af082c0e887c352e4685f15

http://www.nachi.org/comsop.htm?PHPSESSID=5b43bbef1af082c0e887c352e4685f15

http://www.nachi.org/comsop.htm?PHPSESSID=5b43bbef1af082c0e887c352e4685f15

http://www.nachi.org/code_of_ethics.htm?PHPSESSID=5b43bbef1af082c0e887c352e4685f15

http://www.nachi.org/education.htm?PHPSESSID=5b43bbef1af082c0e887c352e4685f15

http://www.nachi.org/cont_education.htm?PHPSESSID=5b43bbef1af082c0e887c352e4685f15

http://www.nachi.org/


http://www.nachi.org/forum/?PHPSESSID=5b43bbef1af082c0e887c352e4685f15


http://www.nachi.org/members-only.htm?PHPSESSID=5b43bbef1af082c0e887c352e4685f15



exposed to radon – it is not only inevitable but, according to the current school of thought, it may be vital to proper cell mutation (yes, some mutations are “good.”).

Most of the EPA stuff on radon was geared toward about a 6th grade education, and lacks precision. If you would like to know the truth about radon, you may find my page interesting:

http://members.aol.com/piobin/radon.html

Regarding the pronounciation- “PEEK-o” ore “PIKE-o” are equally correct, and amongst science types, the prefix “PIKE-o” will be heard more often. But it depends on where in the world one was raised.

Cheers, Caoimhín P. Connell Forensic Industrial Hygienist

(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

Back to Top

RUSSELL MYERS

HOME

ANALYSIS

GROUP.INC.

NACHI

Member:

Yes

(as of

3/25/07)

Posts: 126

User:

rmyers1

Posted: May 8, 2005 9:48 PM Post Subject:

WOW............your comments are very authoritative. Took the time to view your web site. Very informative. Thank you for the input.

Back to Top

Join InterNACHIInterNACHI members receive over $50,000

worth of benefits, all for just $499.

Join Today

Policy

Online Inspector Examination

Glossary of Inspection Terms

NACHI.TV Inspection Videos

Inspection Graphics

InterNACHI InspectorsFind An Inspector

Featured Inspectors

Inspection LinksInspector Outlet

Project Oversight

Move In Certified

International Association of Certified Indoor Air Consultants (IAC2)

Certified Master Inspectors (CMI)

Contact InterNACHI

Emergency Forum

http://members.aol.com/piobin/radon.html

http://www.nachi.org/verify.php?nachiid=NACHI05012695

http://www.nachi.org/contact.htm?PHPSESSID=5b43bbef1af082c0e887c352e4685f15

http://www.nachi.org/forum/f79/?PHPSESSID=5b43bbef1af082c0e887c352e4685f15

http://www.nachi.org/join.htm?PHPSESSID=5b43bbef1af082c0e887c352e4685f15

http://www.nachi.org/join.htm?PHPSESSID=5b43bbef1af082c0e887c352e4685f15

http://www.nachi.org/cont_education.htm?PHPSESSID=5b43bbef1af082c0e887c352e4685f15

http://www.nachi.org/nie.htm?PHPSESSID=5b43bbef1af082c0e887c352e4685f15

http://www.nachi.org/nie.htm?PHPSESSID=5b43bbef1af082c0e887c352e4685f15

http://www.nachi.org/glossary.htm?PHPSESSID=5b43bbef1af082c0e887c352e4685f15

http://www.nachi.org/glossary.htm?PHPSESSID=5b43bbef1af082c0e887c352e4685f15

http://www.nachi.tv/


http://www.nachi.org/gallery/?PHPSESSID=5b43bbef1af082c0e887c352e4685f15


http://www.nachi.org/memberlist.htm?PHPSESSID=5b43bbef1af082c0e887c352e4685f15

http://www.inspectoroutlet.com/

http://www.overseeit.com/

http://www.moveincertified.com/

http://www.iac2.org/




http://www.certifiedmasterinspector.org/








James Bushart

Home

Inspection

Services of

Missouri

NACHI

Member:

Yes

(as of

3/25/07)

Posts: 3690

User:

jbushart

Posted: Aug 4, 2005 12:54 AM Post Subject:

What are your thoughts on this study, linking radon to Alzheimer's and Parkinson's diseases?

Alzheimer’s & Parkinson’s – Could the Cause be Radon?

In a study conducted at the University of North Dakota, researchers discovered that the presence of radioactive radon daughters in the brains of non-smoking persons with Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s disease was 10 times greater than it was in the brains of persons with no previous evidence of neurological disorders. Professor Glenn Lykken and Dr. Berislav Momcilovic assert their study demonstrates that indoor radon gas has the capacity to irreversibly infest the brain with the poisonous progeny of radioactive heavy metals.

Recently revised EPA risks assessments estimate 21,000 Americans die annually from radon induced lung cancer, 150% higher than their 1994 estimate. However, scientists are increasingly suspicious that radon may be linked to disease in other parts of the body as well.

When inhaled, radon gas accumulates in lipid tissue throughout the body with the highest concentration in the brain, bone marrow, and nervous system. Additionally, one-third of the inhaled radon decay products (radioactive particles produced when the gas decays) pass from the lungs into the blood stream indicating that the gas does not flow quickly in and out of the lungs, but lingers in the body.

Previous study at UND determined that once radon is rapidly absorbed into the body from the lung, it accumulates in the cranium resulting in increased gamma ray emissions from bismuth-214 (one of the radioactive radon decay products) and altered EEG signals.

While radon is a lipid-soluble gas that can move freely in and out of the brain despite the blood-brain barrier, none of the transmuted heavy metal radon daughters are soluble in the lipids, meaning they remain trapped in the brain where they emit gamma radiation and alpha particles resulting in both radiation and chemical injury to the brain cells.




Of keen interest was the unexpected discovery that the radioactivity selectively accrues to the brain proteins in the Alzheimer’s victims and to the brain lipids in the Parkinson’s victims. This pathognomonic distribution was inferred to reflect the increase of local chlorine availability to which to which the radon daughters bound selectively.

Once present, the most likely candidate for radiation injury appears to be the highly radiosensitive astrocytes rather than the more radioresistant neurons, which do not divide. Other studies have indicated the astrocytes may be involved in Alzheimer disease and the amyloid deposits and neurofibrillatory tangling observed with Alzheimer's may well reflect the response to radiation injury of the astrocytes.

Interestingly enough, the geographic distribution of Parkinson’s disease mortality is considerably higher in states with a greater radon potential, according to research by D.J. Lansak of the University of Kentucky and published in the Journal of Neurological Sciences.

University of North Dakota researchers are looking for more funding to continue their research. To access the study in its entirety, please go to www.radonnews.org or the Alzheimer Disease and Associated Disorders Magazine. Contact: Professor G.I. Lykken at UND at (701) 777 – 3519.

--Home Inspection Services of Missouri www.missourihomeinspection.com

"We're NACHI. Get over it."

www.monachi.org

Back to Top

Joseph Hagarty

HouseMaster

NACHI

Member:

Yes

(as of


Caoimhín P. Connell wrote:

“PIKE-o” ... amongst science types, the prefix “PIKE-o” will be heard more often.

Cheers, Caoimhín P. Connell

http://www.radonnews.org/

http://www.missourihomeinspection.com/

http://www.monachi.org/




3/25/07)

Posts: 3988

User:

jhagarty

Forensic Industrial Hygienist

(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

Correct Pronunciation.

--Joseph Hagarty

HouseMaster / Main Line, PA [email protected] www.householdinspector.com

Phone: 610-399-9864 Fax : 610-399-9865

HouseMaster. Home inspections. Done right.

Back to Top


NACHI

Member: No

(as of

3/25/07)

Posts: 108



Hello Mr. Bushart:

The information, as reported, appears to be an entertainer’s (journalist) distillation of a scientific report. To a scientist, it rather reads like a six year old’s explanation of why a jet can fly. As a result, not much information can be gleaned from the report of the report of the study. One would have to return to the study and view the original document.

Also, the popular media constantly confuses association, correlation and causation. So the study may well demonstrate an association between radon and the diseases; indeed, it may even demonstrate correlation – however, neither association nor correlation demonstrate causation. Once, during a lecture on toxicology and risk I was giving at Denver University, I underscored this problem by proving (using actual data) that storks cause babies in eastern Europe using the same logic employed by journalists.

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.householdinspector.com/



The conspiracy of confusion, ignorance and media sensationalism can create some remarkable stirs- for example the flap over EMFs (electromagnetic fields) from high-tension power lines and leukemia demonstrated junk science at its best. The original report (Wertheimer and Leeper) discussed a "study" that was so badly designed, so poorly executed and poorly founded on actual science that it was immediately (immediately) discounted as bunk by real scientists who bothered to actually read the original paper.

The paper purported to demonstrate that EMFs caused cancer. In fact, as designed, the study didn’t even study the link between cancer and EMFs, rather, as designed, at best the “study” (which didn’t actually study anything at all) was an inventory of cable diameters in selected residential areas. The study didn’t demonstrate correlation, it didn’t demonstrate association and it didn’t demonstrate causation – but it DID cause a flap and thanks to agenda driven journalists, there are still people in our society that wrongly believe that EMFs from hair dryers, electric blankets, and overhead lines will give you cancer, in spite of a lack of evidence.

I once had to perform a metaanalysis on a disease known as chronic toxic encephalopathy (aka “organic brain syndrome”). I reviewed scores and scores of and scores of original studies from around the world. To my surprise, in some 80% of the studies, the conclusions of the authors weren’t supported by the data or the study! Frequently, the authors would make one-liner conclusions on issues that their study never addressed.

It still happens today – look at the flap caused by the bogus, junk science report about the mould Stachybotrys atra and the deaths of children in Ohio (that has now long since been completely discredited and retracted). What upset me the most about that report was that my peers swallowed the goop WITHOUT EVER READING THE ORIGINAL paper, choosing instead to swallow digests of reports or distillations from other sources that reported on the “findings.” I read the original when it first was published, and immediately discounted it as nonsense and bad science and I said so publically on the AIHA board (which caused a lot of problems for me for almost four years). Eventually, the study was discredited and withdrawn, and the sheep who had bravely attacked me for bad-mouthing the CDC were mow nowhere to be seen.

We still see such silliness to this day such as the “study” often cited by duct cleaners to “prove” that cleaning ducts will improve indoor air quality and reduce airborne fungi ( Garrison RA, Robertson LD, Koehn RD, Wynn SR. Effect of heating-ventilation-air conditioning system sanitation on airborne fungal populations in residential environments. Ann Allergy 1993;71:548- 56). In fact, the study absolutely found no such finding, and indeed, taken at face value using the same flawed logic, the “study” equally demonstrated that if you clean your ducts, certain species of airborne moulds will actually increase. Or the study reported in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives (which seems to almost specialize in requiring authors to



include an element of junk science in order to get published) that purported to be the first case conclusively demonstrating that exposure to ordinary concentrations of indoor moulds cause hypersensitivity pneumonitis , when in fact, the “study” – which was sloppy, sloppy, sloppy, sloppy – did no such thing. (Apostolakos M.J., Rossmoore H., and Beckett W.S. Hypersensitivity Pneumonitis from Ordinary Residential Exposures, Environmental Health Perspectives, Volume 109, No.9 Sept 2001).

So when I hear of reports that are reporting about a report of a scientific study that proves that X causes Y,… I yawn a little, and turn to the comics for something a little more credible.

But, those are just my pre-coffee thoughts on a rainy Thursday morning. Whose knows, when I wake up, I may change my mind.

Cheers! Caoimhín P. Connell

(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[/u]

Back to Top

James Bushart

Home

Inspection

Services of

Missouri

NACHI

Member:

Yes

(as of

3/25/07)

Posts: 3690

User:

jbushart


Thank you for your educated response.

Each time I consider adding radon testing to the services I offer, I re-read your posts and your web site and I am challenged to find a credible way to market these services in a manner that I am personally comfortable with.

How would you suggest a home inspector present radon testing to the public?

--Home Inspection Services of Missouri www.missourihomeinspection.com

"We're NACHI. Get over it."

www.monachi.org

Back to Top


Posted: Aug 4, 2005 12:49 PM Post Subject:


http://www.missourihomeinspection.com/

http://www.monachi.org/



NACHI

Member: No

(as of

3/25/07)

Posts: 108


Hello Mr. Bushart:

“How would you suggest a home inspector present radon testing to the public?” An excellent question. I believe that radon testing can be a valuable part of an home inspector’s tool bag providing a good service. Just follow cook-book EPA protocol to reduce your liability exposure.

Become EPA “certified” and tow the EPA line and that way, you don’t have to concern yourself with defending the protocols, or the results, you don't have to deal or even care about the validity of the results; you are offering a service according to an established protocol, you are not presenting yourself as an expert, merely a service provider. For my part, as a scientist, I can buck the EPA and their risk assessment model and not get into trouble, but an Home Inspector doesn’t have the same luxury.

Just my thoughts... others may disagree.


http://www.forensic-applications.com




AMDG

Back to Top

Brian Kelly

Dwelling

Doctors LLC

NACHI

Member:

Yes

(as of

3/25/07)

Posts: 1699

User: bkelly2



For my part, as a scientist, I can buck the EPA and their risk assessment model and not get into trouble, but an Home Inspector doesn’t have the same luxury.

Just my thoughts... others may disagree.


http://www.forensic-applications.com

http://www.forensic-applications.com/





Good point about Home Inspectors staying within the EPA guidelines.

You may have a lower likelyhood of getting in trouble. Just because one is a scientist does not exclude one from trouble, or does it?.

--"I used to be disgusted, Now I try to Be amused"-Elvis Costello

Back to Top

David Andersen

David A.

Andersen &

Associates

NACHI

Member:

Yes

(as of

3/25/07)

Posts: 529

User:

dandersen


I did all the EPA testing and mitigation stuff to provide "requested" testing of my market.

I frequently address (when the opportunity arises) the Radon issue to my clients where it may be an economic factor in the resale of the property. If someone comes to Nashville, TN. from PA (where Radon is a major concern) they may have to spend a substantial amount of money to correct the problem and never receive any benefit from it. Relocation companies require testing.

I feel the same way about Mold! Is this todays Radon issue? Mold has been around for a long time, and we are just now being effected by it?

How about the 800% increase in cancer (EPA claims) in those who smoke? Is it because they damaged their lungs from smoking or is it because Radon bi-products (Alfa particles) are statically charged and cling to second hand smoke which is much bigger and if ingested back into the lungs when the alpha particles degrade again, mutate cells?

As with mold, there are ten other things related to mold that will damage the structure of the house. Mold is just a byproduct of this damaging condition. If there is mold, there are OTHER issues that I am just as concerned about disclosing.

I have personally found that 98% of the "high" Radon Tests I have conducted were directly related to improper construction techniques. ie. Three gas fired furnaces and two water heaters in the center of the basement with no combustion makeup air and an unsealed sump pit next to it all. Accompanied with leaking return air ducts which distribute the Radon (and god knows what else) throughout the living space of the house!

1% was improper mitigation systems that pumped the Radon from under the house to window and door openings where it got into the house (this goes with your "follow EPA protocol").




Then there was the other 1% where I "just didn't get it" or had too many Margaritas the evening before!

This is my uneducated opinion and disclaim any responsibility/liability to any past, present or future employers, the EPA or my mother.

Back to Top

Paul Hinsperger

Hinsperger

Inspection

Services Ltd

NACHI

Member:

Yes

(as of

3/25/07)

Posts: 1458

User:

phinsperger



.....But, those are just my pre-coffee thoughts on a rainy Thursday morning. Whose knows, when I wake up, I may change my mind.]

Mr. Connell,

So I can conclude from this that coffee and rain on Thursdays causes one to change their mind

--.

Paul Hinsperger Hinsperger Inspection Services Chairman - NACHI Awards Committee Place your Award Nominations here !

Back to Top

Joseph Hagarty

HouseMaster

NACHI

Member:

Yes

(as of

3/25/07)

Posts: 3988

User:

jhagarty


dandersen wrote:

I have personally found that 98% of the "high" Radon Tests I have conducted were directly related to improper construction techniques.

I did not Know that Radon was caused by Incompetent Builders.

--Joseph Hagarty

HouseMaster / Main Line, PA [email protected] www.householdinspector.com


http://www.nachi.org/awards-nomination.htm




http://www.householdinspector.com/



Phone: 610-399-9864 Fax : 610-399-9865

HouseMaster. Home inspections. Done right.

Back to Top

Dan Bowers

Holmes

Inspection

Company

NACHI

Member:

Yes

(as of

3/25/07)

Posts: 1016

User:

dbowers


Bottom line - EPA, the American Medical Association, The American Lung Association, the Surgeon General of the United States AND Johnson County, KS where I live call Radon a known carcinogen and with prolonged exposure - the 2nd leading cause of lung cancer in the USA.

Therefore I address it accordingly - call it as such, and could care less what qualified Realtors or others think about it. I would suggest that for liability sake most half-way intelligent home inspectors do the same.

Back to Top

Paul Hinsperger

Hinsperger

Inspection

Services Ltd

NACHI

Member:

Yes

(as of

3/25/07)

Posts: 1458

User:

phinsperger


dbowers wrote:

Bottom line - EPA, the American Medical Association, The American Lung Association, the Surgeon General of the United States AND Johnson County, KS ....

Dan,

I agree with you. In fact I am one of very few up here that even offer Radon testing.

However, your statement above indicates that all of the associations named (EPA, AMA, etc) agree. Did each one of them do their own study(s) and independently come to the same conclusion? Or did one of them actually do the study(s) and publish their findings and subsequently the other associations followed along. I suspect the latter but I really don't know. Of course they would all agree if they are all following the same study(s).

Not looking at the conclusion for a moment but rather at the authoritative credibility weight being assigned; "If all these associations say the same thing it must be true". It may very well be. But why do they all say the same





thing?

If stated to your clients, realtors, etc in the same way as your post, you might be giving it more weight than it deserves. I'm not attempting to argue with you, just want others to understand how additional credibility can be "generated" by authoritative agencies who may have had nothing to do with the original study(s).

When I discuss radon with a client, I cite both American and Canadian views on it as they are vastly different.

--.

Paul Hinsperger Hinsperger Inspection Services Chairman - NACHI Awards Committee Place your Award Nominations here !

Back to Top


NACHI

Member: No

(as of

3/25/07)

Posts: 108



Hello Mr. Bowers –

That is not the bottom line.

Actually, here's the bottom line:

Although the EPA “summarized” their findings in their nice little public packets they distribute to the American Public (readable by anyone with a fifth grade education) –

If one looks at their actual statements in their study, here is what the US EPA really concluded:

Currently there is very little information about...the health effects associated with exposures to radon at levels believed to be commonly encountered by the public. The only human data available for predicting the risks to the public are studies examining the health effects of exposure to radon and its progeny in underground miners. This information would be appropriate for predicting the risks to the public if everyone was a miner, everyone lived in mines, and a large fraction of the general population smoked cigarettes.





(U.S. Department of Energy "Radon- Radon Research Program, FY 1989, DOE/ER-448P., March 1990).

Believe it or not, not every one is a miner. And, personally, I don't live in a mine, and niether do any of your clients (sometimes, my clients appear to be mine dewellers). If you happen to find a market of mine-dwellers in need of home inspections, then the EPA, ALA, AMA estimates (and the silly 4 pCi/l limit) may apply to them ... if they smoke while living in their mine home. Bottom line: The EPA itself admits their estimates are NOT appropriate.

The NRC understood the limitations of the EPA study and concluded...

In summary, a number of sources of uncertainty may substantially affect the committee's risk projections; the magnitude of uncertainty associated with each of these sources cannot readily be quantified. Accordingly, the committee acknowledges that the total uncertainty in it's risk projections is large.

Why were the uncertainties large? Well, let’s look at what the EPA said about their own study. They said:

Exposure in the U.S. cohort is poorly known; cumulative WLM (CWLM) are calculated from measured radon levels for only 10.3 percent of the miners...and guesswork is used for about 53.6 percent of the miners.

Guesswork. Hmmmm…. Very reliable, that guesswork stuff. Especially when more than half of your study hinges on it.

So here’s the bottom line: The EPA, the American Medical Association, The American Lung Association, the Surgeon General of the United States AND Johnson County, KS, have all used EXACTLY the same EPA foundational study based on ….. TA DA! GUESSWORK!

Now, having said all that – let’s remember three things 1) It is a common misconception that “carcinogen” means “cancer causer;” however, that is not true. Although there are hundreds of compounds that have the classification “carcinogen,” there are only about 25 to 30 exposures that are known to cause cancer in humans.

2) The largest study to date conducted in this country found a negative correlation between cancer and radon in communities (that is, cancer rates were the lowest in areas that had the highest radon concentrations). There is a reason for that; however beyond that point – let’s not loose sight of the fact, that even if the EPA guesswork is right, their guesswork merely demonstrated that at it’s VERY, VERY worst, the risk of death from radon is equal to being one pound overweight for every pCi/l over 4 pCi/l – SPREAD OVER 70 YEARS!



3) I can’t remember my third point. But was good, REALLY, good. When I remember it, I will post again.

Cheers! Caoimhín P. Connell www.forensic-applications.com

p.s. It stopped raining, and I didn't change my mind. So much for causation - but correlation is still in the running!




AMDG

Back to Top

Bill Field

NACHI

Member: No

(as of

3/25/07)

Posts: 6



Dear Mr. Connell,

I have never posted to this message board before, but several home inspectors contacted me after reading some of your posts regarding the health risks of radon and radon progeny. There is a firm scientific base to document that prolonged residential radon (actually radon progeny) exposure causes lung cancer. The EPA estimates that 21,000 lung cancer cases each year are attributable to residential radon exposure. The EPA risk estimates were mainly based on projections from radon-exposed underground miners (see: BEIR VI report [http://www.epa.gov/radon/beirvi.html).

Additional studies are now complete DIRECTLY examining the relationship between residential radon exposure and lung cancer. Both the North American and European pooling of residential radon studies have found that prolonged residential radon exposure even below the EPA’a action level of 4 pCi/L causes an increase in lung cancer (See: Epidemiology. 2005 Mar;16(2):137-45 and BMJ. 2005 Jan 29;330(7485):223).

In reference to Dr. Cohen’s ecologic analyses.

As you may know, the ecologic study design can not be used to assess risk, but merely to generate hypotheses. Numerous examinations of his work, including some by the National Academy of Science, have clearly


http://www.epa.gov/radon/beirvi.html



demonstrated that his findings are most likely due to residential confounding by smoking. In fact, the same inverse association that he notes between lung cancer and radon, is found for other smoking-related cancers (see article by Puskin on this matter).

I feel your posts are a disservice to public health. Residential radon exposure is a serious health threat. I urge you to become more familiar with the literature on radon health effects.

One last note, the WHO expert committee on radon has recently released a statement regarding the health risks of radon progeny exposure; the statement can be found at their site – http://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/env/radon/en/index.html

I do not have time for an extended debate on this issue, but would be happy to respond briefly to any comments or questions you may have.

Regards, Bill Field

R. William Field, M.S, Ph.D. Associate Professor College of Public Health Department of Occupational and Environmental Health University of Iowa Iowa City, IA 52242

319-335-4413 [email protected]

Back to Top


NACHI

Member: No

(as of

3/25/07)

Posts: 108



Hello Dr. Fields:

“Give me the premise, I’ll argue the facts.”

Whilst it’s true that Bernie’s ecological studies have their flaws, they are nothing compared to the uncertainties associated with the flip-side of the argument – in any event, how would you explain away the negative correlation of ten standard deviations that Bernie found? (…if memory serves). So long as grossly inappropriate risk models such as the linear-no-threshold dose response model and the one-hit carcinogenesis models

http://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/env/radon/en/index.html




currently used are employed, and dose rate, hormesis, and DNA repair mechanisms and selectional bias are ignored, there will be argument – the authoritative nature or the laudable desires of the researchers’ organization notwithstanding.

So why aren’t more appropriate models used? Answer: They don’t give the answers the policy wonks want to see. The fact that you bring up social disservice in my posts underpins the problem that lies in policy disguised as science which appears to be precisely what the EPA stated: “Sure it’s bad science, but it makes good policy.”

Good heavens! Tautology, tautology, tautology.

That fact that home inspectors are calling and questioning the issues indicates that my posts are doing quite a good service – and hitting the intended mark. It is interesting that you fear those who question, and associate clarity as disservice.

I would bet you lunch, that based exclusively on your post, I can accurately predict who you voted for in the last presidential election.

Cheers! Caoimhín P. Connell www.forensic-applications.com




AMDG

Back to Top

Bill Field

NACHI

Member: No

(as of

3/25/07)

Posts: 6



Mr. Connell,

Residential radon studies do not require linear no threshold extrapolations, so this is not an issue. Regarding Dr. Cohen’s data, even the National Council on Radiation Protection has invalidated his findings. In fact, Dr. Cohen has stated many times that his data can not be used to assess the risk posed by radon. Nonetheless, as the National Council on Radiation Protection points out, “The clearest data for estimating lung cancer risk from low levels of radon exposure continue to rest with higher-dose studies of




miner populations in which projections to zero dose are consistent with estimates arising from most case-control studies regarding residential exposure.”

RESIDENTIAL RADON EXPOSURE AND LUNG CANCER RISK: COMMENTARY ON COHEN'S COUNTY-BASED STUDY. Health Physics. 87(6):647-655, December 2004. Heath, C W. Jr *; Bond, P D. +; Hoel, D G. ++; Meinhold, C B. +[S] National Council on Radiation Protection Summary report - http://www.ncrponline.org/ Abstract: The large United States county-based study ( Cohen 1995, 2001) in which an inverse relationship has been suggested between residential low-dose radon levels and lung cancer mortality has been reviewed. While this study has been used to evaluate the validity of the linear nonthreshold theory, the grouped nature of its data limits the usefulness of this application. Our assessment of the study's approach, including a reanalysis of its data, also indicates that the likelihood of strong, undetected confounding effects by cigarette smoking, coupled with approximations of data values and uncertainties in accuracy of data sources regarding levels of radon exposure and intensity of smoking, compromises the study's analytic power. The clearest data for estimating lung cancer risk from low levels of radon exposure continue to rest with higher-dose studies of miner populations in which projections to zero dose are consistent with estimates arising from most case-control studies regarding residential exposure.

Health Phys. 2003 Apr;84(4):526-32. Smoking as a confounder in ecologic correlations of cancer mortality rates with average county radon levels.

Puskin JS.

Office of Radiation and Indoor Air, U.S. EPA, Washington, DC 20460, USA. [email protected]

Cohen has reported a negative correlation between lung cancer mortality and average radon levels by county. In this paper, the correlation of U.S. county mortality rates for various types of cancers during the period 1970-1994 with Cohen's radon measurements is examined. In general, quantitatively similar, strongly negative correlations are found for cancers strongly linked to cigarette smoking, weaker negative correlations are found for cancers moderately increased by smoking, whereas no such correlation is found for cancers not linked to smoking. The results indicate that the negative trend previously reported for lung cancer can be largely accounted for by a negative correlation between smoking and radon levels across counties. Hence, the observed ecological correlation provides no substantial evidence for a protective effect of low level radon exposure.

http://www.ncrponline.org/




J Radiol Prot. 2002 Jun;22(2):141-8. The potential for bias in Cohen's ecological analysis of lung cancer and residential radon.

Lubin JH.

Biostatistics Branch, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, Rockville, MD 20892-7244, USA. [email protected]

Cohen's ecological analysis of US lung cancer mortality rates and mean county radon concentration shows decreasing mortality rates with increasing radon concentration (Cohen 1995 Health Phys. 68 157-74). The results prompted his rejection of the linear-no-threshold (LNT) model for radon and lung cancer. Although several authors have demonstrated that risk patterns in ecological analyses provide no inferential value for assessment of risk to individuals, Cohen advances two arguments in a recent response to Darby and Doll (2000 J. Radiol. Prot. 20 221-2) who suggest Cohen's results are and will always be burdened by the ecological fallacy. Cohen asserts that the ecological fallacy does not apply when testing the LNT model, for which average exposure determines average risk, and that the influence of confounding factors is obviated by the use of large numbers of stratification variables. These assertions are erroneous. Average dose determines average risk only for models which are linear in all covariates, in which case ecological analyses are valid. However, lung cancer risk and radon exposure, while linear in the relative risk, are not linearly related to the scale of absolute risk, and thus Cohen's rejection of the LNT model is based on a false premise of linearity. In addition, it is demonstrated that the deleterious association for radon and lung cancer observed in residential and miner studies is consistent with negative trends from ecological studies, of the type described by Cohen.

Health Phys. 1998 Jul;75(1):11-7. Residential 222Rn exposure and lung cancer: testing the linear no-threshold theory with ecologic data.

Smith BJ, Field RW, Lynch CF.

College of Medicine, Department of Preventive Medicine and Environmental Health, University of Iowa, Iowa City 52242, USA.

In most rigorous epidemiologic studies, such as case-control and cohort studies, the basic unit of analysis is the individual. Each individual is classified in terms of exposure and disease status. However, in ecologic epidemiologic studies, the unit of analysis is some aggregate group of individuals. Summary measures of exposure and disease frequency are obtained for each aggregate, and the analyses focus on determining whether or not the aggregates with high levels of exposure also display high




disease rates. The ecologic study design has major limitations, including ecologic confounding and cross level bias. Cohen has attempted to circumvent these limitations by invoking the linear no-threshold theory of radiation carcinogenesis to derive aggregate "exposures" from individual-level associations. He asserts that, "while an ecologic study cannot determine whether radon causes lung cancer, it can test the validity of a linear-no threshold relationship between them." Cohen compares his testing of the linear no-threshold relationship between radon exposure and lung cancer to the practice of estimating the number of deaths from the person-rem collective dose, dividing the person-rem by the number of individuals in the population to derive the individual average dose, and then determining individual average risk by dividing the number of deaths by the number of individuals in the population. We show that Cohen's erroneous assumptions concerning occupancy rates and smoking effects result in the use of the wrong model to test the linear no-threshold theory. Because of these assumptions, the ecologic confounding and cross level bias associated with Cohen's model invalidate his findings. Furthermore, when more recent Iowa county lung cancer incidence rates are regressed on Cohen's mean radon levels, the reported large negative associations between radon exposure and lung cancer are no longer obtained.

Health Phys. 1998 Jul;75(1):4-10 On the discrepancy between epidemiologic studies in individuals of lung cancer and residential radon and Cohen's ecologic regression.

Lubin JH.

Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD 20892, USA.

There is still substantial confusion in the radiation effects community about the inherent limitations of ecologic analysis. As a result, inordinate attention has been given to the discrepant results of Cohen, in which a negative estimate is observed for the regression of county mortality rates for lung cancer on estimated county radon levels. This paper demonstrates that Cohen's ecologic analysis cannot produce valid inference on the exposure-response relationship for individuals unless lung cancer risk factors (smoking, age, occupation, etc.) for individuals are statistically uncorrelated with indoor radon level within counties or unless risk effects for radon and other factors are additive. Both of these assumptions are contradicted in the literature. Thus, contrary to common assumption, when a linear no-threshold model is the true model for radon risk for individuals, higher average radon concentration for a county does not necessarily imply a higher lung cancer rate for the county. In addition, valid inference from county-level ecologic analysis and the elimination of the ecologic bias cannot be achieved with the addition of county-wide summary variables (including "stratification" variables) to the regression equation. Using hypothetical data for smoking and radon and assuming a true positive



association for radon and lung cancer for individuals, the analysis demonstrates that a negative county-level ecologic regression can be induced when correlation coefficients for smoking and radon within county are in the range -0.05 to 0.05. Since adverse effects for radon at low exposures are supported by analysis of miner data (all data and data restricted only to low cumulative exposures), a meta-analysis of indoor radon studies, and molecular and cellular studies, and since ecologic regressions are burdened by severe limitations, the negative results from Cohen's analysis are most likely due to bias and should be rejected.

Back to Top

Kevin Williams

NACHI

Member:

Yes

(as of

3/25/07)

Posts: 1477

User:

kwilliams


I feel it is an honor for NACHI that Mr. Connell and Mr. Field have chosen the NACHI BB as a venue for a debate on this subject.

--Member - MAB

http://www.nachi.org/convention2006.htm

Back to Top

Brian Kelly

Dwelling

Doctors LLC

NACHI

Member:

Yes

(as of

3/25/07)

Posts: 1699

User: bkelly2


Mr. Connell & Mr. Field, gentlemen in your opinions what level of radon is safe?


Back to Top

Bill FieldPosted: Aug 17, 2005 2:03 PM Post Subject:






NACHI

Member: No

(as of

3/25/07)

Posts: 6


Brian,

You asked, “gentlemen in your opinions what level of radon is safe?” That is an excellent question. It depends on what one considers safe. Risks are all relative. What one person considers safe another person may not. There are also a lot of factors that affect our perception of what is a risk. For example, radon is naturally occurring so there are no villains to blame – this reduces the risk perception. Because it is invisible and odorless, there are no sensory reminders to make you think about it. Can you imagine if it was purple and coming up through the foundation how many calls you would get?

Radon decays into solid particles that can deposit in your lung. Two of these decay products (polonium-218 and polonium 214) deposit most of the dose to your lung (see: http://www.vh.org/adult/provider/preventivemedicine/Radon/HealthRisk.html). This chapter I wrote some time ago for an occupational medicine book is a bit dated, but provides a general overview of the decay.

Radon decay products deliver over half of the average Americans radiation dose each year. As the radon decay products decay in the lung, they release small burst of energy (called alpha particles) that can damage the DNA. Alpha particles (a type of radiation) are somewhat unique in that they can cause double strand DNA breaks. These double strand DNA breaks are more difficult for the body to repair. Many scientists believe that cancer is monoclonal, which means that even one misrepaired double strand DNA break can initiate the cancer.

So to answer your question, even very low radon exposures HAVE THE POTENTIAL to cause cancer. However, the chances at very low concentrations (less than 1 pCi/L) are extremely low. As compared to other risks, I personally would call exposures less than 1 pCi/L relatively safe. It may be of interest that there are parts of Iowa where the year long outdoor radon concentration is equivalent to the mean U.S. indoor radon concentration (1.5 pCi/L). So part of radon reduction depends on what is really achievable for a particular home.

We also know from the recent North American and European Pooling of Residential Radon Studies that prolonged exposures as low as 3 pCi/L increased the lung cancer risk. In the Iowa Radon Residential Radon Study I was involved with, there was about a 50% increased risk after 15 years exposure at 4 pCi/L (EPA's action level), see: http://www.cheec.uiowa.edu/misc/radon.html

The finding of the Iowa Radon Study was a bit of a surprise to me, I must

http://www.vh.org/adult/provider/preventivemedicine/Radon/HealthRisk.html

http://www.cheec.uiowa.edu/misc/radon.html



Tweet 39


admit to being skeptical of the ability of radon to cause lung cancer from residential exposure prior to seeing the results of all the studies.

See also, http://www.epa.gov/radon/images/radon_pooling_studies.pdf http://www.news-medical.net/?id=8389

I understand that NACHI will be offering a two day workshop on radon (presented by RTCA) during the upcoming conference. http://www.nachi.org/convention2006.htm

Regards, Bill Field

R. William Field, M.S, Ph.D. Associate Professor College of Public Health Department of Occupational and Environmental Health University of Iowa Iowa City, IA 52242

319-335-4413 [email protected] Community of Science Profile

Back to Top

The entire contents of this site © 2006-2013 InterNACHI. All rights reserved. InterNACHI is a registered trademark of the International Association of Certified Home Inspectors, Inc.

Terms of Use | Find an Inspector

Like 211

https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?original_referer=&text=Radon%20myths%20and%20units%20-%20InterNACHI%3A&tw_p=tweetbutton&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nachi.org%2F%23.Bne4kZvoDXFA.twitter



http://twitter.com/search?q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nachi.org%2F



http://www.epa.gov/radon/images/radon_pooling_studies.pdf

http://www.news-medical.net/?id=8389



http://www.nachi.org/termsofuse.htm?PHPSESSID=5b43bbef1af082c0e887c352e4685f15



http://www.nachi.org/bbsystem/viewtopic.php?t=12143&start=20[10/8/2013 8:44:11 AM]


Search the Forum Archive

NACHI.ORG Forum Index -> Additional Inspection Discussion


These message board pages are now for archival purposes only. Please visit http://www.nachi.org/forum/

for our most recent forum discussions.


Author Message

Brian Kelly

Dwelling Doctors LLC

NACHI Member: Yes

(as of 3/25/07)

Posts: 1699

User: bkelly2


Quote:

So to answer your question, even very low radon exposures HAVE THE POTENTIAL to cause cancer. However, the chances at very low concentrations (less than 1 pCi/L) are extremely low. As compared to other risks, I personally would call exposures less than 1 pCi/L relatively safe

So Bill in your opinion radon levels less than1 pCi/L would be ok and levels greater than 1 pCi/L would require some action?


Back to Top

Bill Field

NACHI Member: No


Inspection NewsLatest Inspection News

Inspection Success Strategies

Inspection Forum

Inspection Articles

Inspection Events

InterNACHI Blog

InterNACHI MembershipMembership Benefits

Membership Application

Renew Your Membership

Inspection StandardsResidential Standards of Practice

Commercial Standards of Practice

Code of Ethics

Inspection EducationInspection Courses

InterNACHI FORUM MEMBERSHIP & BENEFITS MORE

http://www.nachi.org/bbsystem/search.php

http://www.nachi.org/bbsystem/search.php

http://www.nachi.org/bbsystem/index.php

http://www.nachi.org/bbsystem/viewforum.php?f=26

http://www.nachi.org/bbsystem/viewtopic.php?t=12143&start=0






http://www.nachi.org/whats_new.htm

http://www.nachi.org/whats_new.htm

http://www.nachi.org/success.htm

http://www.nachi.org/success.htm


http://www.nachi.org/articles.htm

http://www.nachi.org/events.htm

http://www.nachi.org/blog/

http://www.nachi.org/benefits.htm

http://www.nachi.org/membership.htm


http://www.nachi.org/selfrenewalsystem.htm

http://www.nachi.org/selfrenewalsystem.htm

http://www.nachi.org/sop.htm

http://www.nachi.org/sop.htm

http://www.nachi.org/comsop.htm

http://www.nachi.org/comsop.htm

http://www.nachi.org/code_of_ethics.htm

http://www.nachi.org/education.htm





http://www.nachi.org/members-only.htm



(as of 3/25/07)

Posts: 6


Quote:

So Bill in your opinion radon levels less than1 pCi/L would be ok and levels greater than 1 pCi/L would require some action?

That is a personal choice and in some cases it may be very difficult to remediate a home below 3 or 4 pCi/L. I would follow the Surgeon General's guidance that concentrations should be reduced to 4 pCi/L or below as a year round average. See: http://www.epa.gov/radon/

I mitigated my home when I saw the results of the studies. The radon concentrations over time were getting higher (likely as new cracks developed in the foundation, etc) in my home. It now averages between 1.5 and 2.5 pCi/L , which is pretty good for Iowa where 70% of radon screening readings are above 4 pCi/L.

I hope this answers your question.

See Surgeon General's report below- Radon's health effects are not limited to one political party.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

News Release FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Thursday, January 13, 2005 Contact: HHS Press Office (202) 690-6343

Surgeon General Releases National Health Advisory On Radon U.S. Surgeon General Richard H. Carmona warned the American public about the risks of breathing indoor radon by issuing a national health advisory today. The advisory is meant to urge Americans to prevent this

Join InterNACHIInterNACHI members receive over $50,000

worth of benefits, all for just $499.

Continuing Education Policy

Online Inspector Examination

Glossary of Inspection Terms

NACHI.TV Inspection Videos

Inspection Graphics

InterNACHI InspectorsFind An Inspector

Featured Inspectors

Inspection LinksInspector Outlet

Project Oversight

Move In Certified

International Association of Certified Indoor Air Consultants (IAC2)

Certified Master Inspectors (CMI)

Contact InterNACHI

Emergency Forum

http://www.epa.gov/radon/

http://www.nachi.org/contact.htm

http://www.nachi.org/forum/f79/

http://www.nachi.org/join.htm

http://www.nachi.org/cont_education.htm

http://www.nachi.org/cont_education.htm

http://www.nachi.org/nie.htm

http://www.nachi.org/nie.htm

http://www.nachi.org/glossary.htm

http://www.nachi.org/glossary.htm



http://www.nachi.org/gallery/


http://www.nachi.org/memberlist.htm

http://www.inspectoroutlet.com/

http://www.overseeit.com/

http://www.moveincertified.com/













silent radioactive gas from seeping into their homes and building up to dangerous levels. Dr. Carmona issued the advisory during a two-day Surgeon General's Workshop on Healthy Indoor Environment.

"Indoor radon is the second-leading cause of lung cancer in the United States and breathing it over prolonged periods can present a significant health risk to families all over the county," Dr. Carmona said. "It's important to know that this threat is completely preventable. Radon can be detected with a simple test and fixed through well-established venting techniques."

Radon is an invisible, odorless and tasteless gas, with no immediate health symptoms, that comes from the breakdown of uranium inside the earth. Simple test kits can reveal the amount of radon in any building. Those with high levels can be fixed with simple and affordable venting techniques. According to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates, one in every 15 homes nationwide have a high radon level at or above the recommended radon action level of 4 picoCuries (pCi/L) per liter of air.

National Health Advisory on Radon

Radon gas in the indoor air of America's homes poses a serious health risk. More than 20,000 Americans die of radon-related lung cancer every year. Millions of homes have an elevated radon level. If you also smoke, your risk of lung cancer is much higher. Test your home for radon every two years, and retest any time you move, make structural changes to your home, or occupy a previously unused level of a house. If you have a radon level of 4 pCi/L or more, take steps to remedy the problem as soon as possible.

"Americans need to know about the risks of indoor radon and have the information and tools they need to take action. That's why EPA is actively promoting the Surgeon General's advice urging all Americans to get their homes tested for radon. If families do find elevated levels in their homes, they can take inexpensive steps that will reduce exposure to this risk," said Jeffrey R. Holmstead, Assistant Administrator, Office of Air and Radiation, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

Join Today





"Based on national averages, we can expect that many of the homes owned or financed by federal government programs would have potentially elevated radon levels. The federal government has an opportunity to lead by example on this public health risk. We can accomplish this by using the outreach and awareness avenues we have, such as EPA's Web site, to share information and encourage action on radon to reduce risks," said Edwin Piñero, Federal Environmental Executive, Office of the Federal Environmental Executive (OFEE).

A national Public Service Announcement (PSA) that was released to television stations across America in January, National Radon Action Month, is reinforcing this recently updated health advisory. In the television spot, the camera scans a neighborhood with rooftop banners that remind the occupants of the importance to test their homes for radon. The television PSA can be viewed at: http://www.epa.gov/radon/rnpsa.html

For more information about radon go to EPA's Web site www.epa.gov/radon; or call your state radon office; or call a national toll-free hotline at 1-800-SOS-RADON (1-800-767-7236).

The Surgeon General's Workshop on Healthy Indoor Environment is bringing together the best scientific minds in the nation to discuss the continuing problem of unhealthful buildings. Indoor environments are structures including workplaces, schools, offices, houses and apartment buildings, and vehicles. According to a recent study, Americans spend between 85 and 95 percent of their time indoors.

In just the past 25 years, the percentage of health evaluations that the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has conducted related to indoor-air quality has increased from 0.5 percent of all evaluations in 1978, to 52 percent of all evaluations since 1990. This means that in those years, the evaluations related to air quality concerns have increased from one of every 200 evaluations to one of every two.

The problem is also adversely affecting our children's health as millions of homes and apartments and one in five schools in America have indoor air quality

http://www.epa.gov/radon/rnpsa.html

http://www.epa.gov/radon;



problems. This can trigger various allergies and asthma. Asthma alone accounts for 14 million missed school days each year. The rate of asthma in young children has risen by 160 percent in the past 15 years, and today one out of every 13 school-age children has asthma. Dr. Carmona is especially focusing on how unhealthy indoor environment affects children, as he promotes 2005 as The Year of the Healthy Child.

Regards, Bill

Back to Top

Brian Kelly


NACHI Member: Yes

(as of 3/25/07)

Posts: 1699

User: bkelly2


Thank You Bill.


Back to Top

Jay Moge

NACHI Member: No

(as of 3/25/07)

Posts: 694



oh sure just keep 'em going.

Back to Top


NACHI Member: No

(as of 3/25/07)

Posts: 108



Hello folks –




I confess that I haven’t read all of the questions posed on this board since my last posting. And I did not read a lot of the repeated material by Dr. Fields. However, let me address some of the questions I did read, and also address some of the off-line issues that have been raised. (Please, post your questions to me here, as I don’t always get around to answering direct emails on the subject.)

For a start, Brian Kelly, your question is a good one, and Dr. Field’s response helps to underpin my position that he hasn’t quite got an handle on the technical aspects of the issue. For example, Dr. Fields opines that “Risks are all relative. What one person considers safe another person may not.” In making this statement, Dr. Fields begins to indicate his unfamiliarity with the terms of the business – in that his answer confuses “risk” and “safety.” It simply is not true that all risks are relative, and in many cases we have absolute risk, and indeed we can quantify those risks as absolute. However, what we cannot quantify is “safety” since the issue of safety is perceptual and subjective, and frequently even irrational. It is partially because of statements like this that I realize that Dr. Field is, well, out of his field. Dr. Fields answers your question by saying “So to answer your question, even very low radon exposures HAVE THE POTENTIAL to cause cancer.” But he does not go on to clarify that that potential may be so low as to be non-existent from a practical perspective. In other words, it is equally true to say that Eating a single peanut (exposure to a single peanut) HAS THE POTENTIAL to cause cancer. However, without the benefit of placing that statement within the context of the actual risk – what kind of a conclusion will you draw? Answer: Peanuts are dangerous at all levels. But are they?

Dr. Fields also brings up the recent North American and European Pooling of Residential Radon Studies paper (in fact he brings up the reference more than once). Now, to be honest, Dr. Fields is a minor author (listed sixth on the list) of that study, and so I won’t state that he has a vested interest in it. But frankly, I have to conclude that either Dr. Fields did not read the study, or lacks the technical ability to understand what the study



found. I say this because in a nut-shell, “his” study provides far more support for my argument that his!

Let’s see what “his” study says – For a start, he states that the study DIRECTLY examines the relationship between residential radon exposure and lung cancer. This statement is ABSOLUTELY not correct. The study in question is called a “metaanalysis” study which is an analysis of an analysis or an analysis … etc. In such a study, the errors associated with the foundational study used in the analysis are often ignored, and frequently compounded (and the probability of systematic errors increases).

So let’s see what “his” study says, and why it supports my argument, not his: (by the way, as a risk modeler myself, I am not casting stones at the actual authors, rather, I am casting stones at the inappropriate interpretations of the study by Dr, Fields). The Pooled Study states:

To date, 20 case– control studies of residential radon and lung cancer have been completed, including 7 studies in North America, 11 in Europe, and 2 in China (Table 1). Some of these studies reported a positive or weakly positive association between lung cancer risk and residential radon concentrations, whereas others have reported results consistent with no association.

OK… in layman’s terms this statement acknowledges that not all studies have shown that exposure to radon, at concentrations associated with household exposures, produces a risk of cancer – indeed some studies show no increased risk of cancer.

The study then contains a terrible logic gaffaw which I am rather surprised to see survive the peer review process:

“To date, no case– control study has reported a statistically significant negative association.”

The lack of a negative correlation study, cannot ever, ever, EVER be used as support for an argument of causation or hypotheses test (even a null hypothesis



test) since, in an argument known as reductio ad absurdem , it requires one to prove a negative; which is impossible. It is rather like saying “To date, no case– control study has reported a statistically significant negative association between looking at a blue chair, and developing glaucoma. Ergo, we have found evidence that looking at blue chairs can cause glaucoma.” Essentially what we have is a terrible editing problem in an otherwise interesting (but largely uninformative) paper.

Dr.Fields own study makes it very clear that:

Although excess odds ratios for all but 2 studies (West Germany and Shenyang, China) were positive, confidence limits included the null value of zero in all but 4 studies...

(Layman’s terms: The studies failed to show evidence that radon exposure results in significant cancer risk!) and continues with”

These results reflect a range of lung cancer risks, including the possibility of no risk , suggesting the need for an overall assessment of the findings from different studies.

This IS EXACTLY what I have been saying – and which Dr. Fields argues against. If it was wrong, why then did he not object to the inclusion of the statement in a paper that bears his name? (I have the answer in my back pocket, and it will remain there, in deference to professional courtesy toward Dr. Fields, who may choose explain for himself, or not). I don’t care to go there.

Further, this recent study, that is held up as a banner by Dr. Fields, which openly tells us that 1) a lot of studies show that radon doesn’t cause a problem as concentrations seen in houses, and those that do only show a “weak” correlation, the study starts right off by telling us that:



Underground miners exposed to high levels of radon have an excess risk of lung cancer. Residential exposure to radon is at much lower levels, and the risk of lung cancer with residential exposure is less clear.

No kidding. This is what I have been saying – quite in contrast to the definitive nature of Fields’ statements here on this thread which are entirely devoid of doubt and uncertainty. The reality is that Fields’ own study makes it clear that we don’t have sufficient evidence to conclude that radon exposure at concentrations seen in houses results in a significant risk.

Fields study makes a statement that is DIRECTLY in opposition to his comments here on this board. Fields has stated in this thread that ”Additional studies are now complete DIRECTLY examining the relationship between residential radon exposure and lung cancer.”

This is absolutely NOT true, and in fact, in Fields’ own study, the authors very clearly and unequivocally state EXACTLY the opposite:

The National Research Council has estimated that residential radon may account for 10% to 15% of the lung cancer burden in the United States. However, there has been no unambiguous direct evidence of an increased lung cancer risk associated with residential exposures.

That’s worth repeating since it is PRECISELY what I have been saying here, and it is exactly the opposite of what Fields has been saying here. So to repeat Fields OWN study states:

However, there has been no unambiguous direct evidence of an increased lung cancer risk associated with residential exposures.

I respectfully submit that either Dr. Fields did not read the study which he references, or possibly that he lacks



the technical expertise to understand what the study says. And as a personal note, to Dr. Fields, I say that with all due respect – but what other conclusion can I possibly draw, when your own words on this thread are entirely inconsistent with the study to which you allude?

Dr. Fields further states in this thread:

Residential radon studies do not require linear no threshold extrapolations, so this is not an issue.

Of course they don’t, that is the whole bloody point, for heaven’s sake. Not only do they not require linear no threshold extrapolations, they should NOT be used since they are grossly inappropriate (which is what Bernie Cohen’s studies demonstrated – all the rest of Dr. Field’s talk about hypothesis testing indicates further evidence that Dr. Fields is terribly confused and doesn’t understand the nature of these issues). In any event, apparently Dr. Fields is not aware of the fact that in “his” own study, the lower confidence interval in the overall data gave a negative correlation; with the mean value ever so slightly positive; even in the restricted data set, the LCI was flat (indicting no risk). I’m am not sure that Dr. Fields understands this since it argues completely against what he has attempted to state on this board. Still further, if these exposure studies not require linear no-threshold extrapolations, and they should not be used, then why, in the name of good science, did Fields attribute his name to a metaanalysis that relied EXCLUSIVELY on linear no threshold extrapolations? The Pooled Study to which he alludes states:

All analyses were conducted using conditional likelihood regression with a linear model for the odds ratio (OR) of the form OR(x) =1+Bx, where x is the mean residential radon concentration in the exposure time window in Bq/m3 and B is the excess odds ratio

Dr Fields, if its inappropriate, and its not required … why was it used, and why did you argue in favour of it in one place and agin it here? Why are there so many glaring contradictions between what you have presented here on this thread and what you have presented in “your”



paper? And how, in the light of such GLARING inconsistencies do you have the gumption, to call my challenges a “disservice.” It would be an act of disservice to ignore this kind of behaviour.

Fields paper tells us: Although radon is one of the most extensively investigated human lung carcinogens, the weight of evidence for radon carcinogenicity derives largely from occupational studies of underground miners exposed to much higher radon levels than those typically encountered in homes.

Don’t we know it. This was EXACTLY the same data set which the NRC stated This information would be appropriate for predicting the risks to the public if everyone was a miner, everyone lived in mines, and a large fraction of the general population smoked cigarettes.

But folks, we don’t. It’s that simple. We don’t. And when the foundational data set upon which the metaanalyses are performed are flawed, those metaanalyses are also necessarily flawed unless corrected – which in the case of the Pooled data study – they absolutely were NOT.

(I need to slow down a bit, and take a break, my wife tells me I’m furiously pounding the keyboard again…) Pauses to breath… OK. I’m back. Where was I? Oh yes, pontificating…

Dr Fields “own” study states speaks to the issue of those challenged data: There are also marked differences between the conditions of exposure in mines and in houses. These differences include the relative proportion of radon itself to its decay products (which affects the amount of energy deposited in the lung), respiratory rate (which affects the rate radon and its decay products are inhaled and retained in the lung), and particle size distributions (which affect the fraction of radon progeny attached to particles and the depth of penetration and site of deposition within the lung). All of these factors



complicate the direct extrapolation of occupational data on radon lung cancer risks to residential settings.

No kidding. Isn’t this what I’ve been saying?

Dr. Field’s study tells us: Metaanalyses of published odds ratios from North American and other residential radon case– control studies found a statistically significant increase in lung cancer risk. However, the odds ratios in 13 studies included in the more recent metaanalysis exhibited heterogeneity among studies, possibly as a result of the inability to directly adjust for other confounding factors.

Folks, the subtlety and profound importance of this statement cannot be overstressed – since within the cause of the heterogeneity lies the crux of the problem, and the foundation of my argument. For example, smoking remained a confounder in four of the seven studies and in NONE of the studies was there a negative control.

Let’s look briefly at the validity of the data sets used in the metaanalysis:

The Iowa study also measured only one home….

OUCH! …and historical profiles of radon concentrations in houses based on detector measurements or on the original investigators’ best estimates.

OUCH! Results are based on the best estimates of radon concentrations, including both measured and imputed radon values supplied by the collaborating investigators.

OUCH!



The residential radon measurements in these case–control studies are subject to measurement error. No formal adjustment for this source of error was attempted. Such adjustments require repeated radon measurement in the same

OUCH!

The authors are honest and tell us: The analysis is inherently limited by the quality and reporting of the original residential radon studies, as well as the need for a common data format.

The tautology of the argument was not overlooked by the authors who stated, It is possible that the findings for the restricted data were the consequence of differentially excluding participants in the negative studies.

Look; I’m not trying to slam Dr. Field, I am sure he is now rather embarrassed about referencing a paper which he obviously didn’t read or didn’t understand. Neither am I casting stones at the primary authors (Fields was only a minor author, listed sixth), who performed a metaanalysis and appeared to be quite open with their assumptions. Indeed overall, the paper was important in that it reemphasied many of the things that I have argued in these radon threads.

Ultimately, my problem lies with policy wonks and others who parade poor science as fact, and present conclusion not supported by their data, and or conclusions bereft of context and/or perspective. I would like to thank Dr. Fields for referencing a study, indeed participating in a study that very effectively argues my point.

Cheers – I’m going fishing.

Caoimhín P. Connell 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

Back to Top

Kevin Williams

NACHI Member: Yes

(as of 3/25/07)

Posts: 1477

User: kwilliams


WOW ----- interesting reading for sure thanks for some of the layman’s terms, I for one could use more......

--Member - MAB


Back to Top

Harry

NACHI Member: No

(as of 3/25/07)

Posts: 2



Quote:

Look; I’m not trying to slam Dr. Field, I am sure he is now rather embarrassed about referencing a paper which he obviously didn’t read or didn’t understand. Neither am I casting stones at the primary authors (Fields was only a minor author, listed sixth), who performed a metaanalysis and appeared to be quite open with their assumptions. Indeed overall, the paper was important in that it reemphasied many of the things that I have argued in these radon threads.

CONNEL - PRETTY LAME EMAIL. Do people really pay you to testify? Yikes! They must be pretty desperate for a hack.





I checked out Dr. Field's Community of Science Site - Many first author papers in fact one with these same authors.

Metaanalysis - Even I know a pooling is not a meta analysis - they used the raw data!! Metanalyses doesn't.

I guess another way at looking at this is that he published a landmark paper on the subject and he is a co-author listed in alphabetical order.

I wonder who would have more a priori credibility in court, you or him? Pretty obvious answer.

Looking at the summary of the Iowa Study, I see these quotes from famous scientist about his study - http://www.epa.gov/iaq/radon/iowastudy.html

pretty impressive.

Where's the beef Mr. Forensic Toxicologist?

His community of science information is very impressive including work with the world health organization,

http://myprofile.cos.com/Fieldrw

Where is your resume posted Mr. Forensic Toxicologist??

I have seen a lot of people like you in the courtroom and outside. Dr. Fields provided evidence to refute what you said about Dr. Cohen's work and substantiated all his views. All we get from you is childish attacks. It is clear you have the view that if you can not defend your position, just attack the person.

You talk the authoratative talk, but aparently do not walk the walk.

Dr. Field, thank you for providing coherent, educational posts. - I would welcome you as a speaker at our next conference.

Harry Homestead Forensic home inspector

http://www.epa.gov/iaq/radon/iowastudy.html

http://myprofile.cos.com/Fieldrw



Back to Top

Brian Kelly


NACHI Member: Yes

(as of 3/25/07)

Posts: 1699

User: bkelly2


Very interesting Gentlemen


Back to Top

Kevin Williams

NACHI Member: Yes

(as of 3/25/07)

Posts: 1477

User: kwilliams


Mr Field - Unique ID: 762A-9F-0CD2A9 Harry - unique ID: 762A-9F-0CD2A9

what's up with this ?????

--Member - MAB


Back to Top


NACHI Member: No

(as of 3/25/07)

Posts: 108



Hello Mr. Williams:

Actually, that kind of response is more common than you might imagine. A couple of years ago, during a criminal/civil case in Florida, I was the expert in a case wherein I opposed and eventually exposed a very high profile PhD consultant in Florida who frequently testifies, claiming to have a PhD in toxicology (and had been accepted as such by many courts). However the claim was fraudulent and he did not have a PhD in toxicology as claimed.






Shortly after loosing the case, this particular PhD began posting a variety of ad hominem posts under a variety of pseudonyms on a particular board without realizing that his identity was actually being tracked by the board host’s ISP. Of course, he too denied making the objectionable posts which always complimented himself for his great contributions to science whilst making wild attacks on me (for example claiming that I was under investigation by the FBI and that I was part of a secret insurance misdirection organization out to destroy him – apparently earning % million $$ per year, too I might add!).

So, it isn’t too surprising to see Dr. Fields creating a sudden pseudonym and trying to attack through the back door. He has to be very embarrassed at this point.

Regards, Caoimhín P. Connell





AMDG

Back to Top

Bill Field

NACHI Member: No

(as of 3/25/07)

Posts: 6



Quote:

So, it isn’t too surprising to see Dr. Fields creating a sudden pseudonym and trying to attack through the back door. He has to be very embarrassed at this point.

Mr. Connel,

Investigate further!



No pseudonym, visiting scholar using same wireless connection. No pseudonym needed to argue the points that were brought up. I would know enough to change IP.

I am still waiting to hear factual information to substatiate why radon does not present a hazard in the residential setting.

Back to Top

Kevin McMahon

ABC Home Inspection, LLC

NACHI Member: Yes

(as of 3/25/07)

Posts: 3363

User: kmcmahon


Well, I'm indeed smarter for reading the first part of this thread....the second part seems a pissing match of sorts between two brainiacs.

Wow...that's a first....a pissing match between two non-inspectors!!!

--Wisconsin Home Inspection, ABC Home Inspection LLC

Search the directory for a Wisconsin Home Inspector

Back to Top


NACHI Member: No

(as of 3/25/07)

Posts: 108



Dr. Fields-

You state:

No pseudonym, visiting scholar using same wireless connection. No pseudonym needed to argue the points that were brought up. I would know enough to change IP.

I see, a “visiting scholar” eh? Who just happened to be using your connection? Who just happened (by coincidence) to sign on to the NACHI board to chime onto your comments? A “visiting scholar” who just happened to provide a bogus homepage? Who just


http://certified-inspector.com/

http://wisconsin-home-inspectors.com/



happened to be using your computer…?

By the way, a “visiting scholar” who just happens to have the same misspelling patterns that you do?

A “visiting scholar” who just happens to accidentally use the same logical fallacy patterns (argumentum ad verecundiam) that you do?

Dr. Fields, you have been entirely discredited. Your initial thread indicated a lack of intellectual honesty, and that has now been carried over into the rest of the posts. The first rule of getting out of a hole is “Stop digging.” The shovel is in your hands.

Don’t invite me to “investigate further;” I happen to be very good at what I do – and it is very likely that you would regret the invitation.

A “visiting scholar” eh? Dr. Fields, what’s his name, and why did he use a phoney name while using your computer?

I suggest you step down while you have the chance – you have made a terrible fool of yourself, and you have discredited yourself.

Feel free to contact me directly off-line as I won't respond to you further here.

Kind regards, Caoimhín P. Connell [email protected]





AMDG

Back to Top

Marcel Cyr

Cyr Home Inspections

NACHI Member: Yes


Good job of expressing educational views on the subject.





(as of 3/25/07)

Posts: 795

User: mcyr

Come again. Very rewarding views. Thank you.

Marcel

Back to Top

Bill Field

NACHI Member: No

(as of 3/25/07)

Posts: 6



Mr. Connel,

Shared facilities is very common in a lab.

I would urge all NACHI members to explore the offerings of both the NRSB and AARST.

NRSB http://www.nrsb.org/

AARST http://www.aarst.org/

They provide a tremendous reseource for education in thsi area.

Back to Top

Harry

NACHI Member: No

(as of 3/25/07)

Posts: 2



Mr. CONNELS,

Way to get off topic and out of a debate............

Very sad behaviour! Accuse and run! I am not surprised you never heard of a wireless node with a single IP address. I like the assertion that the post ID is linked to a single computer, very creative.

http://www.nrsb.org/

http://www.aarst.org/



I was shown your sad unprofessional response and had to respond. I am an Academic Industrial Hygienist who welcomes the chance to debate you in court. Your views are very much out of mainstream science. You do not need to know who I am. I surely do not want unwarranted attacks like you attack anyone who offers an opinion contrary to yours. Perhaps we will meet in court. My expertise is in nanoparticles so look out for those cases, please!

In reviewing your posts, I failed to see one that contributed any sound scientific information. I question your motives! Surely your posts do not give credit your profession. If anyone has been discredit, you have!

Mr. Connels attacks are based on his inability to respond adequately to Dr. Fields posts. While Gruf and cheeky --- they are just a screen to cover his embarrassment.

I do apologize to NACHI members for my last post. It was a knee jerk reaction after I was shown his unprofessional attacks on Dr. Field.

See you in court Mr. Connel. Cheerio!

Back to Top

Brian Kelly


NACHI Member: Yes

(as of 3/25/07)

Posts: 1699

User: bkelly2


Harry why has the web page in your profile changed?


Back to Top

Kevin Williams

NACHI Member: Yes

(as of 3/25/07)

Posts: 1477


well at least he used a different computer this time

--Member - MAB







Tweet 39


User: kwilliams

Back to Top

John Nosworthy

Delmarva Home Inspection

Services and

Environmental Testing

NACHI Member: Yes

(as of 3/25/07)

Posts: 80

User: jnosworthy


Wow ... Tangle of the Titans ...rounds I and II ... I'm certain I was learning something there for awhile. You know ... healthy debate and all like that. All this and more for only 79 cents a day!

Back to Top

The entire contents of this site © 2006-2013 InterNACHI. All rights reserved. InterNACHI is a registered trademark of the International Association of Certified Home Inspectors, Inc.

Terms of Use | Find an Inspector

Like 211

https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?original_referer=&text=Radon%20myths%20and%20units%20-%20InterNACHI%3A&tw_p=tweetbutton&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nachi.org%2F%23.Bne4iqrm1xfA.twitter



http://twitter.com/search?q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nachi.org%2F




http://www.nachi.org/termsofuse.htm


Documents

Radon myths and units - InterNACHI · 2013. 10. 8. · annually from radon induced lung cancer, 150% higher than their 1994 estimate. However, scientists are increasingly suspicious