[ RadSafe ] Radon consensus question

Dan W McCarn hotgreenchile at gmail.com
Thu May 13 18:26:31 CDT 2010

Hi Mike:

I cannot answer your question, however there are very practical reasons why
remediation, namely that the house may not be saleable without remediation.

Given that the technology exists to easily lower the concentration
significantly (active ventilation, etc.) at a moderate cost; then I think
the ALARA principle is applicable. Part of that also depends, of course, on
the house construction.  Perhaps active ventilation of the basement would be
sufficient. I would also be concerned that the radon test might not be
accurate depending on the season, type of air-conditioning system, etc. Is
the "mid-eighties" number from spring / summer / autumn when the windows and
doors might be open, diluting the concentration?

A secondary issue are the personal habits and circumstances of the current
owner: do they smoke? Are there young children in the house?

A tertiary consideration is that the house may not be saleable without
remediation. Eventually the homeowner must make the investment whether for
their own (possible) benefit, or the ability to sell the house.

Dan ii
Dan W McCarn, Geologist
108 Sherwood Drive
Los Alamos, NM 87544-3425
+1-505-310-3922 (Mobile - New Mexico)
HotGreenChile at gmail.com (Private email) HotGreenChile at gmail dot com
-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Brennan, Mike
Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2010 15:27
To: Radsafe
Subject: [ RadSafe ] Radon consensus question

I recognize there are people on Radsafe that do not agree with the EPA
Action Level of 4 pCi/l of radon in air, and I respect that.  I am a
little curious about how high the levels have to be before there is
consensus that something should be done.  

As an example, I have been helping a person who tested her home, which
is located in a high radon potential area, and has a average in the mid
80s.  The test appears to have been done correctly, and the level, while
high end of what is seen in that area, is not particularly out of line.
The space tested is used as living area.  

Is there anyone on Radsafe who believes that an annual average
concentration of 80 pCi/l is not worth taking corrective actions over? 
You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list

Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the
RadSafe rules. These can be found at:

For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit:

More information about the RadSafe mailing list