Radon

Common testing methods for radon include short-term tests (2-90 days) and long-term tests (more than 90 days) using passive devices like charcoal canisters, alpha-track detectors, and electret ion chambers. Continuous radon monitors are also available for real-time monitoring. It is important to follow the manufacturer's instructions and conduct tests in the lowest livable area of the home.

That is a good question. What we do know is that, contrary to popular belief, there is no known additional risk of cancer associated with radon levels as normally seen in houses. In fact, there is no science to support the common practice of radon measurement and radon mitigation in homes. The common practice is a "policy practice" not supported by science. Most (in fact virtually all) of the risk assessments done to date, that support the radon industry, rely on, or reference selected passages from the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reports. However, if we actually go to those exhaustive studies we see that in the "latest" EPA risk estimates, on Page 13, the EPA tells the public: Although there is a growing body of data from epidemiological (case-control) studies showing a correlation between lung cancer and radon exposures in homes, these results do not conclusively demonstrate an excess risk in homes with elevated radon and are inadequate as a basis for quantitative risk estimation. Thus, estimates of risk for indoor exposures must still be extrapolated using models derived from the miner data. EPA Assessment of Risks from Radon in Homes (United States Environmental Protection Agency; Air and Radiation (6608J) EPA 402-R-03-003, June 2003) Let's look at this statement in detail. What the EPA means by this is that although there is a growing body of data from epidemiological (case-control) studies showing a correlation between lung cancer and radon exposures in homes, that "correlation" to which they are referring is actually a NEGATIVE correlation. In other words, the correlation is inversely related to the radon concentration - This means that the growing body of data from epidemiological (case-control) studies are showing that the lung cancer rate DECREASES with increasing radon concentrations seen in residential settings. That is why the EPA "clarifies" their statement with "…, these results do not conclusively demonstrate an excess risk in homes with elevated radon…" In making this statement, the EPA is correct, since in fact they show just the opposite. The current wording allows the uninformed reader to lead themselves into thinking the opposite without the EPA actually having said it, unless they read the entire risk analysis study (which virtually no one reads). Next, the EPA states: Thus, estimates of risk for indoor exposures must still be extrapolated using models derived from the miner data. In other words, the EPA is saying that because the growing body of data from epidemiological (case-control) studies showing a negative correlation between lung cancer and radon exposures in homes, these results do not conclusively demonstrate or support the "policy" statements presented by the EPA and therefore, the studies are inadequate as a basis for quantitative risk estimation. But in fact, they are not. The objective truth is that the studies are showing exactly what health physicists and epidemiologists have known for years, but these findings are not in line with what the EPA has issued as a policy statement. So the EPA is forced to use studies of underground miners, extraplated to home occupants, since those are the only studies which would support the EPA policy, that is why the EPA says: Thus, estimates of risk for indoor exposures must still be extrapolated using models derived from the miner data.But are those studies even valid? Let's see what the EPA says about their own miner data on page 13 of the same document: There are a number of important differences between mine and indoor exposures that must' be considered in making this extrapolation. Indeed there are! The U.S. Department of Energy ("Radon- Radon Research Program, FY 1989, DOE/ER-448P., March 1990) agrees and stated: 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. However, we don't all live in mines, we aren't miners, and we (mostly) don't smoke - so why are we using this data? Furthermore, The National Research Council, ("Health Risks of Radon and Other Internally Deposited Alpha Emitters, BEIR IV", National Academy Press, Washington, DC., 1988) stated that the miner data is comprised mainly of "guesswork." Here is what the NRS 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. That is over half of the estimated exposures were guessed! Imagine that - GUESSWORK! Why is the EPA choosing to ignore valid epidemiological studies in favor of guesswork? And even on Page 2 of the new US EPA risk estimates, the EPA questions its own use of the guesswork and states: Third, the exposure rates in homes are generally lower than the lowest levels for which we have clear evidence of excess risk in mines. The EPA goes on to say: Although the miner data and radiobiological data are both suggestive of a constant risk per unit exposure as one extrapolates downward from the lowest miner exposures, this assumption has been questioned. It has in fact been questioned and indeed, it has been demonstrated to be completely wrong. (Cohen, BL. Test of the linear no-threshold theory of radiation carcinogenesis for inhaled radon decay products. Health Phys. 68, 157-174, 1995.) The EPA acknowledge Cohen's work in the new risk estimates and stated: An ecological study has indicated that lung cancer rates are negatively correlated with average radon concentrations across U.S. counties (Cohen 1995), suggesting that the risks from very low levels of radon have been overestimated, or that such exposure levels might even protective against lung cancer. But qualified the observations thus: Numerous critics, including the BEIR VI committee, have discounted the (Cohen) ecological study results because of methodological limitations, and the biologically based models remain highly speculative. Imagine that - the EPA criticizes Cohen's studies as "speculative" even though it's own studies are based on guesswork. However, unlike the EPA studies, the Cohen studies did not involve "guesswork" which clearly "highly speculative." The EPA and the BEIR VI committee adopted what is known as the linear no-threshold assumption for radon-induced lung cancer, but recognized that this understanding is incomplete and that therefore the evidence for this assumption is not conclusive (or indeed, not even valid). In the 2003 risk estimates the EPA clearly stated that: The BEIR VI committee adopted the linear no-threshold assumption based on our current understanding of the mechanisms of radon-induced lung cancer, but recognized that this understanding is incomplete and that therefore the evidence for this assumption is not conclusive. But Cohen in 1995 (referenced above) and many others since (such as Brüske-Hohlfeld, I; Rosario, AS; Wölke, G; et al. Health Physics March 2006, Volume 90, Number 3) have shown that the LNTDR curve is not valid, and the EPA itself says "that this understanding is incomplete" and the EPA also says "therefore the evidence for this assumption is not conclusive." So it begs the question: Why did the EPA, knowing that the model was not supportable by science, and did not agree with observed fact, use the model anyway? Well, a possible answer lies with financial gain. According to the SNM Committee On Radiobiological Effects Of Ionizing Radiation, the societal cost of testing and mitigation at the EPA recommended level was estimated at 44.5 billion dollars (1991), and that cost would rise to 101.2 billion dollars if the action level was lowered to 2 pCi/liter. Even at the NCRP action level, 8 pCi/liter, the cost is estimated at approximately 15 billion dollars. In other words radon testing and mitigation is good for the economy, even if the science doesn't support the industry. As it turns out, the EPA doesn't actually have ANY data that confidently demonstrates a positive correlation, or causation regarding radon in homes and lung cancer. But the EPA dismisses this problem and actually said that radon measurements in homes is not important for risk estimates in homes, but it is more important to guess at what miners were exposed to and then apply those extrapolated values to home owners. It is not likely that even a school child at a science fair would get away with such anti-scientific posiitons. Although there are dozens of studies that that measured radon in homes and failed to find an increased risk, or indeed a positive correlation, the EPA arbitrarily decided to ignore those studies since they do not agree with the "policy" decisions. On page 7 of the 2003 risk estimates the EPA states: The most important information concerning the health risks from radon comes from epidemiological studies of underground miners. But reasonable people want to ask: Why? Why not use the radon concentrations in homes to calculate the risk of radon in homes? Especially sinse the EPA it self notes the huge differences between those kinds of environments and on Page 24 of the 2003 risk estimates the EPA admits: However, exposure conditions in homes differ from those in mines, with respect to both the physical properties of the inhaled radon decay products and the breathing patterns in the two environments So why not use the data from homes? Simple - Because even according to the EPA: Unlike what was found with the more limited BEIR IV and ICRP analyses, the BEIR VI committee was able to conclude that the ERR per WLM increased with decreasing exposure rate or with increasing exposure duration (holding cumulative exposure constant). This complex sounding paragraph is why - What this paragrpah means is that as the estimated concentration of radon goes up in an home, the risk of lung cancer goes down. So, we know a lot about radon exposures in mines, and we know that those exposures are extremely high, and we know they can be very dangerous, we also know a lot about radon in homes and we know that studies have shown that radon gas, as seen in homes has NEVER been demonstrated to increase the risk of lung cancer. As it is, the dose-response curves, and the actual science behind the issue do not support the policies of the EPA or any other government agency which used the EPA studies as the basis for their policies.

Having a radon test done on your house in PA is important because radon is a radioactive gas that occurs naturally in soil and can seep into homes through cracks and openings. Prolonged exposure to high levels of radon can increase the risk of lung cancer. Testing for radon is the only way to know if it is present in your home and if mitigation measures are needed to reduce it to safe levels.

No, radon is a naturally occurring radioactive element present in materials containing uranium and thorium (both of which are also radioactive).

The most likely source of radon in a building is granite, either in the bedrock underground, in granite countertops and tabletops, granite fireplaces, etc.

A microwave cooker is made of metal and plastics and contains no radioactive materials.

Radon is harmful to the environment as it is a radioactive gas that is released from the Earth's crust. It can contribute to air pollution and can seep into water sources, posing health risks to both humans and wildlife. Radon exposure can also impact plant growth and soil quality in affected areas.

Group 18 - noble (inert) gases: helium, neon, argon, krypton, xenon, radon, Uuo

Radon gas is Rn. (That's its chemical symbol.) It's a monoatomic molecule because it's a noble or inert gas. It hangs out by itself (as a single atom) in air or dissolved in water or trapped in rock, and it really isn't much interested in reacting chemically with other elements.

Radon is primarily used in radiation therapy to treat cancer, as it can destroy cancer cells. It is also used in some industrial processes, such as to detect leaks in pipelines and in soil testing to assess ground contamination.

Radon daughters, also known as radon decay products or radon progeny, are radioactive isotopes that are formed when radon gas decays. These decay products can attach to airborne particles, allowing them to be inhaled and potentially cause health problems, particularly lung cancer. Testing for radon and its daughters in indoor environments is important to assess the risk of exposure.

The right. The only exception to that rule is Hydrogen which is a gas and is on the far left side above Family 1.

Helium and xenon have been used in medical applications such as MRI scanners and anesthesia. Radon is radioactive and poses health risks if inhaled. Neon, krypton, and argon are primarily used in lighting technology such as neon signs and fluorescent lamps.

Radon is a colorless gas and doesn't burn.

Yes, radon can be harmful to cats if they are exposed to high levels for extended periods. Inhaling radon gas can lead to respiratory issues and an increased risk of developing lung cancer over time. It is important to mitigate radon levels in your home to protect your pets as well as yourself.

Too much radon exposure can lead to symptoms such as coughing, chest pain, wheezing, and respiratory infections. Long-term exposure can increase the risk of lung cancer. It is important to test homes for radon levels and take steps to reduce exposure if necessary.

No, I did some research and it appears there are some things you can do to reduce radon gases in your home and that is good ventilation and fans, there are other things you can do also. Please follow the links below for extensive information from the US Environmental Protection Agency.

Yes, Dimitri Mendeleev (1834-1907) was alive during the discovery of radon (1899-1903).

Radon is an inert or noble gas, and that's as far from being a metal as an element can get. You'll find radon at the bottom of the Group 18 elements (naturally) on the periodic table. Use the link below for more information.

Radon was discovered by Friedrich Ernst Dorn, a German chemist, in 1900 while studying radium's decay chain

A radon level of 15 picocuries per liter is considered high and poses a significant health risk. Radon is a radioactive gas that can accumulate in enclosed spaces, such as homes, and long-term exposure to high levels can increase the risk of lung cancer. It is important to take steps to reduce radon levels to protect your health and the health of those around you.

In a geographical sense, just about everywhere. It is more common in certain areas than others. It's considerably heavier than air, so radon escaping from the ground into the atmosphere tends to collect in low places, particularly those which are enclosed and have little air circulation. Typically in a house the highest concentration of radon will be found in the basement.

She didn't discovered radiation.

In the spring of 1896, Henri Becquerel found a penetrating radiation coming from uranium compounds. The Curies took the next step, showing that these rays depended only on the amount of uranium in the compounds. They thus concluded (correctly) that radiation was a facet of uranium atoms themselves, not the result of chemical interactions.

Radon is a noble gas element and is classified as a nonmetal. It is colorless, odorless, and tasteless, making it difficult to detect without specific testing equipment.

If you are asking about Radon, there aren't any sypmtoms. You just develop some form of lung cancer. The chances are low, maybe three in 10,000 people exposed per year, and epidemiology can't really separate those cancers from normal cancer occurances unless the number of people studied is huge. Just have a whole house Radon test done and have them put one test kit or meter under a glass or metal bowl to see how much the granite is contributing to the home's radon. If you are asking about heavy metal posioning, look up the various heavy metals on the internet. Arsenic, polonium, beryilium, chromium, and lead are some of the more common toxic heavy metals found in granite. One warning, other than geologists studying average local granites, there has been no research on what is in commercially sold granites. Right now, you can sell any granite regardless of it's toxicity or radiation levels. Sad business. For more info, use the link below. We have more info and experts on this subject than anyone else. You don't really expect the stone industry to study this do you?