This group brings together the best thinkers on energy and climate. Join us for smart, insightful posts and conversations about where the energy industry is and where it is going.

Post

Residential Radon: Safe, Not Scary

Robert Hargraves's picture
Chief Marketing Officer ThorCon US

AB Dartmouth College mathematics; PhD Brown University high energy physics. Co-founder ThorCon International. Author "THORIUM: energy cheaper than coal". Chief Information Officer Boston...

  • Member since 2018
  • 225 items added with 56,697 views
  • Jan 2, 2017
  • 18815 views

Radon1

This January EPA renews its anti-radon campaign. This is based on misconceptions. It needlessly frightens the public about harmless levels of natural radiation.

Radon gas is produced in minute quantities as uranium in rocks slowly decays over billions of years. It can seep up from the earth and accumulate in basements because it heavier than air. Radon is a noble gas so it doesn’t react chemically or biologically.

Radon2

However radon decays within a few days, creating new radioactive atoms. These may cling to air-borne dust particles that might stick in your lung airways then cause a small radiation dose.

EPA thinks all radiation can potentially kill you with cancer, and recommends radon testing and remediation if radioactivity exceeds 4 pico-curies per liter of air. (Note that humans are naturally slightly radioactive at about 200,000 pico-curies.)

Here’s EPA’s scary graph of deaths (Worry not, it’s false).

Radon3https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-05/documents/hmbuygud.pdf

EPA’s radon deaths are only based on an invalid theory called LNT. They are not observed, unlike the drunk driving deaths and others.

Biology recovers from many insults, including low level radiation. Cancer occurs only when the immune system is overwhelmed.

Here are US lung cancer deaths, by county. Red counties have the highest death rates, blue lowest.

Radon4

https://ratecalc.cancer.gov/ratecalc/

Here’s radon, by county, blue lowest. More than 10% of homes in non-blue counties have radon exceeding EPA’s warning level.

Radon5

http://www2.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/radon-risk-website.html

But compare the two maps. The counties with less radon have more lung cancer deaths. EPA’s LNT theory is clearly wrong.

Bernhard Cohen studied the death rates, by county. They do drop with increasing radon, invalidating EPA’s LNT theory and warning.

Radon6

This data shows how low-dose radiation actually has a protective heath effect, similar to the immune response caused by vaccines.

End politicized science at EPA

The radon scare was set off because of lung cancer in early uranium miners. They smoked and worked in dusty mines with high radon concentrations. The EPA still struggles to maintain public fear of all radiation, claiming that Cohen’s low-dose evidence must be wrong, even though he did take smoking into account. Over 150,000 smokers die annually of lung cancer. Residential radon is harmless.

Radon7

Exposure limits set by EPA with LNT theory also impair progress in medicine and nuclear power. EPA rules ignore science, biology, and observed low-level radiation health effects. The limits are political, retained to appease small, vociferous groups.

This January EPA renews its radon campaign. The problem is this frightens the public about harmless levels of natural radiation. Such unfounded fears are the root cause of public resistance to nuclear power. Appeasing the frightened public by acting as if all radiation is harmful delays and raises costs for this emission-free, reliable, abundant energy source that can alleviate global warming and energy poverty.

Robert Hargraves's picture
Thank Robert for the Post!
Energy Central contributors share their experience and insights for the benefit of other Members (like you). Please show them your appreciation by leaving a comment, 'liking' this post, or following this Member.
More posts from this member
Discussions
Spell checking: Press the CTRL or COMMAND key then click on the underlined misspelled word.
Thorkil Soee's picture
Thorkil Soee on Jan 2, 2017

High time we get rid of the old scaremongering and realize the facts as they are.
Radiation Hormesis: See http://wp.me/p1RKWc-6e
Even there is very little correlation between radiation and cancer. See http://wp.me/p1RKWc-1iq

Keith Pickering's picture
Keith Pickering on Jan 2, 2017

Bob, I would also draw your attention to the following very important paper:

Simeonov, Kamen P., and Daniel S. Himmelstein. “Lung cancer incidence decreases with elevation: evidence for oxygen as an inhaled carcinogen.” PeerJ 3 (2015): e705.

Simeonov et al. showed that the second-leading cause of lung cancer is not radon, but living at low altitude. Radon was weakly significant as a protector against lung cancer (hormesis effect).

The real significance of Simeonov et al. is that it demonstrates that all previous radon/lung cancer studies (including case-controlled studies) must be viewed skeptically, if they have failed to include the effect of altitude as a possible confounding variable in their analysis. (And that includes almost every radon study ever done; although Cohen did include it in one of his later studies.)

The EPA’s scare tactics on radon is nothing short of a scandal. It’s non-science nonsense.

Get Published - Build a Following

The Energy Central Power Industry Network is based on one core idea - power industry professionals helping each other and advancing the industry by sharing and learning from each other.

If you have an experience or insight to share or have learned something from a conference or seminar, your peers and colleagues on Energy Central want to hear about it. It's also easy to share a link to an article you've liked or an industry resource that you think would be helpful.

                 Learn more about posting on Energy Central »