Raise the Hammer

I was unable to find the article you referenced (issue 130(1) is for June, not January, but still didn't contain the article). Chen did publish an article in the July 2008 issue which had a map. Not particularly helpful; the 37 test sites were taken in a straight-ish line from Ottawa to Sarnia and therefore don't address Hamilton...

Chen's conclusion:

Except for the city of Toronto, information on indoor radon concentrations is generally unknown for most areas in southern Ontario. Since radon in soil is the main source of radon in homes, measurements of soil gas radon concentrations were conducted to assess the natural background variation in radon potentials across Southern Ontario. Results from this study indicate that radon risk could be high in some areas of Southern Ontario.

I'd say put this worry on the back burner. Best to avoid the packed-earth floor lifestyle trend though. I'm much more worried about mortality getting me. Is there a test for that?

Radon gas is a major source of cancer, just like Volcanoes and other natural processes spew far more radiation into the air than nuclear bombs and reactors. Simple geological/biological facts, but nothing to be really worried about. But why add to it?

Cigarette smoking puts your risk factors for everything from inactivity to asbestos through the roof. There are even those who argue that radioactive phosphate fertilizers play a role (often made from crushed rock from uranium mining areas etc). True or not, it's one of those internet pseudoscience factoids makes great cocktail party conversation.

There are very easy ways to cut cancer risk - eating well, exercising, sunblock, not smoking, and not putting known carcinogens into our food, air, water and ground.

I have had 25 years experiences researching and teaching on radon detection and radon risk reduction. The problem with a map of radon probability is that it totally useless to determine whether a householder should or should not test. Several houses, apartments, or school classrooms next to each other can have widely differing radon concentrations. The health risk of indoor radon is one of the is one of the most thoroughly documented risk we face. The risk of dying from exposure to radon in the home is about 70 times greater that that of accidental carbon monoxide exposure in the home. Everyone should test their home. wangell@umn.edu

@wangell

The problem with a map of radon probability is that it totally useless to determine whether a householder should or should not test.

This I cannot believe, as it implies that radon distribution is completely random.

Several houses, apartments, or school classrooms next to each other can have widely differing radon concentrations.

I have heard that this is true, owing to differences in soil, basement permeability and ventilation. But in areas with low soil radon concentrations, can you find high radon dwellings? This would mean a) a significant radon soil concentration (from what exactly? imported uranium tailings for basement foundation?) and b) very porous basement and c) tight air envelope. All three together seem highly improbable in a generally low radon area.

If anyone has statistics and explanations that say otherwise please post them!

The risk of dying from exposure to radon in the home is about 70 times greater that that of accidental carbon monoxide exposure in the home. Everyone should test their home.

If this number is true, and it may be, then why do the two largest big box hardware stores in Canada stock hundreds of thousands of CO detectors, but zero radon detectors? just asking. The concept of triage would say testing everything is unwise advice, given limited resources.

Yes, homes with high levels or radon can be found anywhere, areas that are know to be 'radon rich' and those that are considered low level areas. That is the challenge with radon and that is why the only way to know is to test. Long term radon detectors are easily available in Canada - Home Depot, Home Hardware and Walmart sell them and a number of the Canadian Lung Associations also sell kits.

Ask anyone from the EPA about the radon map that they have published and they will tell you that it has been a detriment to effectively protecting US citizens from the risk of radon b/c unless they live in the 'red' zone they don't test ..

It is true that the risk from exposure to radon is significantly higher for smokers than non-smokers - the population risk of developing lung cancer has been estimated at 1 in 20 for non-smokers and 1 in 3 for smokers who are exposed to high levels of radon for a long period of time.

The choice is yours but here's how I look at it - the risk from long term exposure to high levels of radon is equivalent to the risk of accidental death from car accidents, drowning and fires. I wear my seat belt (despite the fact that the likelihood that I will get in a car accident is very small) and use lifejackets on my kids when boating (despite the fact that the likelihood that we will get in a an accident where they are needed is very low) . It cost me about $50 to test my home and now I know that I am not increasing my or my kids chances of getting lung cancer - easy.

Hi,

I heard that report as well and got a kit from Home Depot. Thay have two different kinds, short term and long term.

Hunter

Before throwing around statistics, you have to take them with a grain of salt. The best way to do that is PYLL - potential years of life lost. For example, a man dying from lung cancer at age 63 (like my father) would have had a life expectancy of 78 years. His death has a weight of 15 years of life lost. Conversely, a 17 year old who dies in a MVC loses 61 years of life expectancy, so the PYLL weighting is 4.1 times greater. If average age at death is dissimilar, you are talking apples and oranges and should not compare these statistics without some kind of correction factor.

Thanks for the info on Home depot Canada - no products for radon are listed on their website, but there are 19 different smoke/CO detectors.

Seems to be no real evidence presented yet as to if and how high radon can be found spuriously in a low radon area, and what kind of incidence we are talking about.

With 12.5 million households in Canada, testing once for radon at $50 means $625 million. And realistically, poor households are not going to do it.

From a public/preventive health perspective, that is a fail. If this is as unpredictable and important as the health minister states, it should be covered like flu shots, and/or required by insurance companies. Either would mean economies of scale and bring the cost way down.

Lung cancer treatment in Canada cost $328 million in 1988, likely a lot more now than just the inflation adjustment.

The economics you mention, Ted, only make a stronger case for a collaborative approach in which one detector can take readings at many homes, and warn people when they should be installing longer-term devices. It's like lead pipes - not the end of the world, just something to take reasonable measures against.

If there's a reason for highly varying amounts of radon, I'd suspect it has something to do with tight building envelopes. All sorts of nasty toxins and allergens get concentrated in "well insulated" homes that don't breathe. That leads to things like sick building syndrome. It's a shortcut to more "green" and "efficient" housing, and it isn't a good one. Polyurethane spray foam may be cheap and easy, but it isn't a substitute for good design or construction.

@undustrial

On the contrary - the more a house "breathes" the more susceptible it is to radon gas infiltration.