(Radon Busters Nationwide Average Cost $1200)
(Who are you gonna call? Whats in your your Wallet?)
The radon business is a scam
It's put out by the same folks who are selling us man-made global warming; WHO, the EPA, the NIH, all of whose best interests it serves to create crises so they can get money to keep "studying" the problem.
EPA's magical 4 picocuries/cubic liter threshold is arbitrary. There have never been tests of the effects of varying amounts of radon in a home setting. The only tests come from mine shafts in Pennsylvania where miners developed cancers, and where radon was among 25 or so radioactive elements present The results pf these findings were extrapolated to homes. In other words, THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A SINGLE VERIFIABLE CASE WHERE RADON IN A HOME WAS LINKED TO AN OCCURRENCE OF CANCER. Even the EPA has admitted it.
From a 1994 EPA report: "Facts Concerning Environmental Radon"
"To date the EPA has had little success in stimulating home owners to measure levels in their homes which would be the first step in the process of deciding on a course of action if a high radon level is found. This is partly because it is difficult to get people concerned that their home, a place that one looks to for security, is a potential source of hidden danger. Also, it has not yet been possible to generate convincing data on increased risk at or below 4-8 pCi/liter"
What? No evidence of increased risk in the 4-8 range? Yet the EPA recommends action on any reading above 4? And all the radon companies are making $800 to $2000 setting up bogus vent systems for this number pulled out of thin air? And all the realtors, like sheep, fall into line?
Finally, two most widespread claims about radon all come from one source, the EPA:
1) Radon is the second-leading cause of lung cancer
2) 21,000 people die of lung cancer each year due to radon.
The rub here is that these two statements, long considered gospel, FAIL TO SEPARATE SMOKERS VS. NONSMOKERS. Furthermore, the numbers used are on the HIGH END of the actual findings which said 3,000 to 32,000. Ergo, it is IMPOSSIBLE TO MAKE EITHER CLAIM ABOVE without pulling numbers out of thin air.
ERGO, THERE IS NO WAY TO TELL WHETHER RADON OR SMOKING CAUSED CANCER IN THE ABOVE CASES.
Below is the sole source for these two claims which have been repeated thousands of times, so much, in fact, that they are considered gospel. It is from the public summary of the EPA report, "Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation".
Note: "EVER-SMOKERS' is defined as ANYONE WHO IS SMOKING OR HAS EVER SMOKED.
"The BEIR VI committee's preferred central estimates... are that about 1 in 10 or 1 in 7 of all lung cancer deaths-amounting to ... about 15,400 to 21,800 per year in the United States- can be attributed to radon among ever-smokers and never-smokers together."
"The number of radon-related lung cancer deaths resulting from (our analysis) could be as low as 3000 or as high as 32,000. Most of the radon-related lung cancers occur among ever-smokers, and because of the synergism between smoking and radon, many of the cancers in ever-smokers could be prevented by either tobacco control or reduction of radon exposure."
So...."15,400 to 21,800 per year in the United States- can be attributed to radon among ever-smokers and never-smokers together".....So how can they arrive at the claim that "21,000 people die in America from radon each year?
It's a bogus lie.
And from that lie sprang the industry of radon mitigation for residential homes that we are all paying for.
When you think about it, anybody with an IQ over 75 would question the idea of paying a thousand bucks to "cure" a problem you can't see or smell; a problem nobody has ever noticed or observed negative results from; a problem that apparently didn't even exist until 1984.
.........................................................................................
Sleeping radon hoax from early 90s reawakened in 2002
Regulators capitalizing on nation's 9-11-induced fear of unseen enemies -- regardless of facts or science
Two years ago Tom Macy produced a research paper showing science discredits the radon scare as a hoax. We believed then that radon was used as a cover for strict building codes requiring homes and buildings to be airtight and energy efficient -- causing people to get sick from breathing fumes emanating from synthetic carpet fibers, paints, floor finishes and solvents.
However, Macy's research was not timely two years ago as the dominant media had put the issue to bed -- until January 16, 2002. “CdA, Spokane radon levels highest in region” was the headline attached to a story by Spokesman-Review staff writer Susan Drumheller. As an odorless and invisible gas by-product of the decomposition of uranium in soil, “experts” claim that radon is the second leading cause of lung cancer in the nation. Drumheller's article appears to be a vehicle to rekindle public hysteria over the unseen radon enemy so Kootenai county officials will be supported in their efforts to implement a regulatory scheme protecting the public from a problem that doesn't exist.
By Tom Macy
Prior to the 1850s, scientific endeavors were marred by the lack of a specified set of procedures for conducting inquiries. In many (if not most) cases, it was common to find mere opinions being passed off as facts and unsupported speculations being heralded as profound discoveries.
The “Scientific Method”, as the accepted procedure came to be called, consists of the following steps: 1) Problem identification; 2) data collection; 3) formulation of hypothesis; 4) empirically testing the hypothesis and; 5) publishing the results for peer review.
By adhering to this rather rigid framework, it became possible to limit the amount of erroneous data that was collected and to coordinate the work of researchers on a worldwide basis. Unfortunately, it appears that research into the radon issue has not followed this model.
Before about 1970, radon was regarded as something of a laboratory curiosity and was used mainly for therapeutic purposes. One textbook refers to it as “nasty stuff” and it was generally regarded to be a health hazard for workers in laboratories and hospitals where it was in use. Up to that point it appears that very little analytical work had been done with it because of the difficulties encountered in its handling.
Sometime in the early 1970s a serious problem was reportedly noticed at a uranium mine in Europe. It seems that the miners were contracting lung cancer at a rate 50 times higher than normal. A study of some sort was apparently conducted and it was concluded that the cancer was being caused by radon.
No information appears to be available regarding the location of the mine, who may have conducted the study, or what methods were employed in arriving at the conclusion presented. What is obvious, however, is that this was the beginning of the worldwide indictment of radon as a public health hazard. Many of the reports that have been published regarding the radon hazard nebulously refer to the “European uranium mine.”
Subsequent studies were conducted in the U.S. and involved coal miners in Pennsylvania. It has been reported that the data and conclusions originating from the uranium mine study were supported by the coal mine results. Again, the studies themselves have been impossible to locate and no data from them appears in the reports that are available. There is also a complete lack of information about who made such studies or which mines were involved.
A review of the material that is readily available to the consumer has illuminated one very important fact. There is absolutely no mention made of any qualitative or quantitative analytical techniques that might have been used to identify the radon that is supposedly present in homes all across America and around the world.
The only measurements that are ever identified are those that detect the presence of radioactivity.
If radon were the only radioactive element in the universe, simply checking for the presence of radioactivity would be sufficient. But there are literally hundreds of radiation sources, both natural and man-made. The purpose of this paper is to point out the futility of trying to sort out which element is responsible when we live in a veritable stew of low-level radioactive sources. We eat, drink, breathe, bathe in and eliminate dozens of such materials every day.
The only reason that the radon story has retained any credibility at all is because its promoters, including the EPA and other government agencies, can depend upon the general public's ignorance of the science involved. The only way that anyone can begin to unscramble the misinformation is by understanding the problem. In order to accomplish that, radon and all of its relatives should be studied along with some of the ideas on how they interact with the rest of the world.
.......................................................
Radon Calculator
.......................................................
The following information was taken from the prestigious CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics; 68th edition:
1. Radon is but one of 14 radioactive elements that are created as Uranium 238 disintegrates to become Lead 206
2. The half-life for the whole 14-step process is 4.5 billion years -- it takes 10 half-lives for 99.9 percent of the radioactive material to decay
3. The half-life for radon is 3.8 days -- 99.9 percent of the radon in any given sample will be gone in 38 days
4. It takes seven tons of uranium ore to produce 1 gram of radium (radium is radon's parent)
5. One gram of radium will emanate 0.0001 ml. (1 ten-millionth of a liter) of radon per day
6. One square mile of soil six inches deep contains approx. 1 gram of radium
7. Radium emits alpha and beta particles as well as gamma rays.
8. Radon emits alpha particles only
The following information has been derived from a variety of physics, chemistry and geology textbooks:
1. Geologists use a process called “radiometric dating” in order to establish the age of rocks
2. In this process, the amount of Uranium 238 is compared to the amount of Lead 206
3. Since the 14-step decay process takes a known amount of time for the uranium to disintegrate to Lead 206, younger rocks will have more uranium while older rocks will have more lead
4. This process PRESUMES that the entire decay process takes place within the rock and that NONE OF THE DECAY PRODUCTS (INCLUDING RADON) is able to escape.
( Note: It is possible that a small amount of radon is able to leave the rock matrix if it is formed very near the surface of the rock or if the rock is very finely pulverized. If a significant amount were to routinely escape, the uranium dating method would be useless.)
The above information leads to the following inescapable conclusions: Under laboratory conditions, extremely small amounts of radon are produced and collected (It is not likely that these results are indicative of what occurs in the field because the laboratory sample is pure, refined radium while the field variety is trapped in rock matrices and widely distributed throughout non-uniform conditions).
If the entire daily production from one gram of radium were uniformly distributed over an area one-mile square and 8 to 10 feet high, the amount per unit of air would be extraordinarily small. Since most of the radon produced in rocks and soils is likely to stay there to become Lead 206, the amount available for distribution is so small that it approximates zero.
On the other hand, data obtained from
Radium in natural sources in an article titled “Radioactivity in Nature” under the heading “Food” it is discovered that Brazil Nuts contain from 1,000 to 7000 pico curies per kilogram (pCi/kg) or 2.2 lbs.* There are approximately 120 nuts in a kilogram so each nut contains from 8.33 to 58.33 pCi of radium. Compare this to the 4 pCi/liter safety limit established by the EPA for radon in room air. Radium is far more dangerous because will replace calcium in bone structures and irradiate the marrow -- a known cause of leukemia.
(Did ya get that? If ya got about 2 pounds of brazil nuts you could have up to 14 times the safe level of radon the EPA has established as safe. Just think about that. All it would take is a bag of brazil nuts under your house to cost you about $1200.00 to get rid of a problem that doesn't exit. A scam for sure.) Story reports
But what of the miners?
They really died of lung cancer, we are told.
The most likely explanation for this entire scenario goes something like this:
1. The mining company is negligent in providing the miners with adequate breathing equipment
2. The miners breathe the mining dust containing at least 14 different radioactive elements
3. The miners get sick and die
4. The company seeks a way of avoiding any liability for the problem and hires someone to invent a cover story -- it is very successful; they can hardly be held responsible for something that occurs naturally
5. The story is picked up by the American Tobacco Institute which is looking for an alternate explanation for the causes of lung cancer in smokers
6. The ATI provides funds for research, hoping to avoid liability, as did the mining company
7. The ploy did not work, but misguided researchers confused laboratory data from the research by applying it to field conditions to make it appear that radon is a major health hazard.
8. The radon abatement industry is born!
* A picoCurie is one-trillionth of a Curie, the unit of measure for radioactive material.
Sleeping radon hoax from early 90s reawakened in 2002
.............
.............
Exposure To Low Levels Of Radon Appears To Reduce The Risk Of Lung Cancer, New Study Finds
Exposure To Low Levels Of Radon Appears To Reduce The Risk Of Lung Cancer, New Study Finds
ScienceDaily (Mar. 26, 2008) — Exposure to levels of radon gas typically found in 90 percent of American homes appears to reduce the risk of developing lung cancer by as much as 60 percent, according to a study published in the March issue of the journal Health Physics. The finding differs significantly from the results of previous case-control studies of the effects of low-level radon exposure, which have detected a slightly elevated lung cancer risk (but without statistical significance) or no risk at all.
The study, undertaken jointly by researchers at Worcester Polytechnic Institute (WPI), Fallon Clinic, and Fallon Community Health Plan, is the first to observe a statistically significant hormetic effect of low-level radon exposure. Toxins and other environmental stressors (including radiation) that have a beneficial effect at very low doses are said to exhibit hormesis (scientists believe that the low doses of toxins may stimulate repair mechanisms in cells). Home exposure to radon, a naturally occurring radioactive decay product of radium, has been thought to be the second leading cause of lung cancer, after cigarette smoking. Chemically inert, it can percolate out of the ground into basements.
The study was initiated and managed by Donald F. Nelson, now professor emeritus of physics at WPI, during the 1990s, a time when concern over the link between residential radon exposure and lung cancer was growing. Nelson says the aim was to try to establish what level of radon exposure actually correlated with significant lung cancer risk and to establish a safety zone for home radon levels. “We were certainly not looking for a hormetic effect,” says co-author Joel H. Popkin of Fallon Clinic and St. Vincent Hospital in Worcester. “Indeed, we were stunned when the data pointed to that conclusion in such a strong way.”
In the study, the exposure of 200 individuals with confirmed cases of primary lung cancer to radon was compared to the exposure of 397 carefully matched, randomly selected control subjects. All subjects were 40 years old or older and had lived in their homes for at least 10 years. All of the cases and controls were residents of Worcester County in Massachusetts and were enrolled in the same health maintenance organization, Fallon Community Health Plan.
The results were statistically adjusted for factors known to be correlated with lung cancer risk, including smoking, occupational exposure to carcinogens, and level of education. The adjusted results show that the odds ratios of developing lung cancer fall below one (the no effect level) at radon exposure levels within the range measured in about 90 percent of homes across the United States (0-150 Becquerel per cubic meter of air, or about 0-4 picoCuries per liter). The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recommends that homeowners take remediation actions when household radon exposure levels rise above 4 picoCuries per liter, based on the belief that radon exposure presents a linearly increasing lung cancer risk (a view not supported by the new study in the low-dose region).
In a statistical analysis led by Richard E. Thompson, associate scientist in the department of biostatistics at the Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, two mathematical techniques were used to compute the odds ratios of developing lung cancer. They each showed a statistically significant lowered lung cancer risk—a reduction of as much as 60 percent–over portions of the 0-150 Becquerel per cubic meter range.
The results of the current study do not fall within the “linear, no threshold” (LNT) model commonly used to analyze radon’s cancer risk (in fact, the current study calls into question the validity of that model). The model starts with cancer risks documented for exposure to high levels of radon (for example, by uranium miners) and extrapolates a considerable distance to risks at low levels (for example, for homeowners). In that model, the odds ratios of developing cancer rise linearly from one, beginning at a radon level of zero. The model has been used by the EPA to derive its estimate that 21,000 cancer deaths annually can be attributed to radon exposure, and also accounts for the common belief that there is no safe level of radon exposure.
Donald Nelson says the differences in the outcomes of this and previous studies may be attributable to key elements of the new study’s design. For example, he noted, care was taken to place radon monitors (for yearlong measurements) in areas of the home where the subjects spent the most wakeful time. Monitors were also place in the subjects’ present and former bedrooms and on any other home level where they spent as little as one hour per week.
The subjects’ exposures were then obtained by weighting the measurements according to the time typically spent near each detector. The results were further adjusted to account for how subjects’ home use changed with changing lifestyle (for example, transitioning from full-time employment to retirement). “Our analysis shows this to be an important improvement over exposure measures used by almost all other studies,” he said.
“It is important to note,” Nelson added, “that these new results do not dispute the lung cancer risk associated with higher levels of radon exposure experienced by uranium miners. Nevertheless, the results represent a dramatic departure from previous results and beliefs. Of course, a single epidemiological study is seldom regarded as definitive, so our results point to the need for new studies using our techniques.”
Nelson also noted that the study revealed a dramatic correlation between level of education and lung cancer risk. Subjects who had at least some college education were found to have only 30 percent of the lung cancer risk of those with less than a high school education. “While education has been found to be an important correlated variable in many health studies,” he said, “this is a particularly striking and statistically significant result, one found after smoking, job exposures, and radon were statistically adjusted for.”
.............
.............
.............
(If this is true, and you be the judge, the radon scam business not only rips you off but increases your risk of lung cancer!!!!)
.............
AnyCalculator.com (Over 100 FREE online calculators.)
ExactWeather.com (Not Exact But Close Enough.)
FineTunedUniverse.com (Atheist evolutionary theories disproven. There are No valid models proving anything except GOD created the heavens and earth in 6 days.)
