The EPA and the Radon Scare

[Guest Daniel213243]

About ten years ago I was forced out of my house by the EPA and the Army Corp. of Engineers because they beleived our house had high amounts of radioactive matter mixed in to the mortar used to construct the house. My parents were given market value of the house and it was taken apart piece by piece then shipped to a land fill in Utah. When the media reported on the incident they made the EPA look like heroes that saved our lives from "cancer causing" radon fumes. They also made it seem as if we hit the jackpot and recieved large sums of money from the government when actually all we got was the market value of the house. Even though we were compensated it still doesn't change the fact that we were FORCED to relocate by the government. Staying in our home and leaving it the way it was was not an option.

 

My reason for writing to this forum is to get an answer to a question about the cancer causing effects of radon. The EPA site states that an inhalation of high concentrations of radon increases your chances of getting cancer. Of course if you are breathing in raw radioactive material and nothing else you can get cancer but there is radon everywhere! It is in rocks, the ground underneath us everywhere. Is the EPA showing grossly exaggerated statistical data on the cancer causing effects of radon? It is advantageous for the goverment to scare their citizens because it makes the citizens more obedient and respectful of their authority. This fear also makes citizens put their rights aside and encourages blind obedience.

 

Think of all the minerals in the average multivitamin. When you read the label on a bottle of multivitamins you will see things such as zinc, iron and niacin. In small doses such as we would see in a vitamin supplement these things are actually good for you. However, if you were to consume a tablespoon full of pure zinc you would probably die. I think the radioactivity of radon is a convenient element for the government to use for mind control. We naturally fear anything "radioactive" because we associate it with nuclear weapons. However their is radiation in sunlight! Some sunlight is good for you. Of course when you stay out in it too long during the summer months you can get burned but exposure to radiation while walking to your mailbox on a sunny day certainly won't kill you!

 

Is there a scientist on this board that can give me some insight on this issue?

[blike]

My reason for writing to this forum is to get an answer to a question about the cancer causing effects of radon. The EPA site states that an inhalation of high concentrations of radon increases your chances of getting cancer. Of course if you are breathing in raw radioactive material and nothing else you can get cancer but there is radon everywhere! It is in rocks, the ground underneath us everywhere. Is the EPA showing grossly exaggerated statistical data on the cancer causing effects of radon? It is advantageous for the goverment to scare their citizens because it makes the citizens more obedient and respectful of their authority. This fear also makes citizens put their rights aside and encourages blind obedience.

 

I'm no scientist yet, but I'll just throw some info out. Maybe someone else can answer better.

 

A study done by the University of Iowa found that "resident radon exposure is a significant cause of lung cancer".

 

[Residential Radon Gas Exposure and Lung Cancer: The Iowa Radon Lung Cancer Study, American Journal of Epidemiology, 151(11): 1091-1102, 2000 ]

 

Different studies give different results. Some, like the aforementioned, indicate a significant increased risk of cancer for homes that exceed the EPA's radon regulations.

 

Check out this CNN article: New study suggests radon threat may be overestimated. Basically it says that most studies done on radon effects are done with miners, who have extremely high exposure. His study was published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, Vol. 96, No. 1, Jan. 5, 1999

 

I have access to the journal article if you want it.

 

Sure, walking to your mailbox in the won't harm you. But if you lived outside in the sunlight all the time your skin cancer risk would go through the roof. Living in a house that has decaying radon you probably had a much higher exposure to it than someone who encounters trace amounts in rocks and dirt. The issue probably wasn't that you're being exposed to it--I'm being exposed to it everytime I help my grandma with her garden--rather it was how much you were being exposed to. The EPA obviously felt it was too much. Whether or not they are right is up for debate.

 

I'm sure the radiation scare could be (and maybe has been) used for scare tactics. But what advantage would the government have for scaring you out of your home, unless they needed the land for a road or waterpipe or something. I gotta run to class, I'll try and find some more info later.

[fafalone]

First let me establish that I personally hate the EPA. Their laws don't let me play with radioactive things in a home lab

 

 

Just as some amounts of sunlight is safe, some amounts of radon are. This is extremely small however, since radon is highly radioactive. Radiation causes mutation in genes, often leading to cancer. If there was a high concentration of radon, then you are extremely likely to develop cancer. If you really wanted to, you could set up a lab experiment and get the data for yourself. Avoid high concentrations of radon at all costs, unless you actually want to get cancer.

[blike]

But the issue is whether or not what the EPA says is high is actually high..

[fafalone]

The safe limit is 4 pCi/L, which means no more than 8-9 atoms decay in a minute in a liter of air (since the half life of radon is 3.8days for the most common isotope (222), this amounts to no more than a few parts per billion). Radon is the heaviest mononuclear gas and emits alpha particles on decay, so I'd tend to agree with the EPA on the dangers of it, especially since over 15000 deaths are attributed to cancer caused by it every year.

[Guest Daniel213243]

Are there ways the EPA could arrange the collection and interpretation of the data so that it looks more serious than it truly is?

[blike]

Yes, I'm sure. Especially if is a team of scientists that are actually paid by the EPA.

 

However, they likely have little influence with universities, though I could be wrong. Worth checking into though, I'm sure others have wondered the same thing.

[blike]

A quick scan of google revealed a few anti EPA pages..

 

GROUP AGAINST GAS

 

EPA lies to legislature

 

EPA: Environmental Propaganda Agency

 

More EPA Globaloney

 

None of these involve EPA's radon standards, but there are plenty of disgruntled people.

[blike]

off topic, but what part of florida you from?

[fafalone]

Like I said before, you can do some research on the topic yourself. Radon is available to researchers; as are lab animals. It's kinda hard to lie when any shmuck researcher can figure out the results on their own.

[Guest Daniel213243]

This radon thing happened in Drexel Hill and Lansdowne Pennsylvania. I live in Clearwater. Ill read those articles when I get home. Thanks for the input.

[aman]

In a Pennsylvania winter your house would be closed for months and recirculating the air inside, probably through the basement back to the upstairs. That could lead to some pretty high concentrations in the air.

Did the EPA give you measurements of what they were seeing?

Just aman

[Guest Daniel213243]

The EPA did a detailed study of the the air quality of the house that began with a device that looks like a measuring cup with a screen over the top. They sent us four of these to place in different areas of the house. After this they came by with a much larger testing device that was in a little three wheeled car that encircled the block twice. Then the Army Corp. of Engineers made a visit to our house with a hand-held device that made a clicking noise when they pointed it toward the house.

 

I remember they compiled all the data into a book and I believe they gave us a copy. I don't have it with me; sorry. However, I don't think my parents had a non-EPA scientist check the house. That is why I am skeptical. I don't think it is very scientific to rely completely on a body of researchers paid by the same agency (the U.S govt.).

 

There should have been a "control" body of researchers and scientists to check the US govt. work and do their own study. One study on a house randomly selected and another on our house. Governments have always had a history of dishonesty and ulterior motive. It would be dangerous and non-scientific to assume they are above reproach and infallible. Humans as individuals have a tendency to err as well as sin. Big bodies of humans (govt.) are even worse.

 

Ill see if I can find the results that the EPA compiled. When I find them Ill let you know. Thanks.

[aman]

The EPA is pushed to be results oriented in every case they investigate. They may have been pushed to make a hasty and comparativly inexpensive fix just to show the money is doing something while the real expensive and dangerous sites wait.

Too bad an independant research wasn't done.

Just aman

[fafalone]

That clicking thing was a Geiger counter. If it's clicking alot, there's alot of radiation. Doesn't matter what type (a/b particle emissions, radon is a).

[blike]

Yea, the clicker was probably a Geiger counter.

 

Even so, you're right. Some independant tests to verify the EPA's findings would have been a good course of action. Of course, it would probably cost $$.