Re: AARST Radon Scientist Claim Nation's Policy a Failure

[Stewart Farber <farbersa@optonline.net>]

Hi Bill:



I'm certainly not disputing that radon exposure in homes likely causes health 

effects. Whether it is an estimated  3,000 or 33,000 fatalities per year my major 

point is still the same. Why is our society so phobic about trivial exposures in 

the present or 10,000 years in the future from nuclear waste disposal and former 

nuclear defense site cleanup [which might result in a handfull of theoretical 

deaths per year at most], when estimated risks [numbering in the thousands per 

year] like those due to indoor radon get such lip service? Why is our nation 

willing to spend hundreds of billions of $ to "cleanup" former defense sites 

causing trivial exposures to anyone offsite or in elaborate schemes to reduce 

future doses from nuclear waste disposal [which many antis claim is an 

"unacceptable risk"] while at the same time we essentially ignore massive [by 

comparison] indoor radon risks? What's wrong with this picture? The hyprocisy is 

incredible. 



Back around 1978, I saw a news report on NBC news about a wonderful new active 

solar system in New Hampshire which used solar energy to heat air which stored 

its energy in a heat storage reservoir consisting of 80 tons of Conway, NH 

grantite. After doing some calculations of likely radon levels inside this home, 

I called Dr. John Harley, at the time director of DOE's Environmental 

Measurements Lab [EML] to ask if he had a feel for the "escape coefficient" for 

an atom of radon which would be generated in a 1" diameter piece of granite [the 

size of the crush used in heat storage reservoirs]. He felt it would be in the 

range of a few % and asked me what my interest was. I mentioned the NBC news 

report on the solar home in NH and asked if DOE's Radon Studies Group which had 

for many years had primary responsibility for making radon measurements inside 

homes which used uranium mill tailings in Colorado, had ever made any airborne 

radon measurements inside a solar heated home. His answer [in 1978!]: "Nobody has 

ever thought of it". Dr. Harley was quite interested in this home and I gave him 

the details of the broadcast on the NBC Today Show that morning, although I did 

not have the name of the homeowner. After DOE got no cooperation from NBC News in 

getting the homeowner's name and contact information, Dr. Harley asked if I could 

help him. After making a few calls to colleagues in NH at the State Health Dept. 

I was able to get the name of the homeowner featured on NBC news, and the names 

and addresses of several other NH homeowners who had even larger [100 tons vs. 80 

tons] of crushed granite as a heat storage reservoir.  Subsequently in a joing 

effort between DOE's EML and the State of NH, measurements were made of airborne 

radon inside the active solar heated home in New Hampshire featured on NBC News 

which had 80 tons of crushed Conway, NH granite as the heat storage reservoir. In 

initial measurements in the summer with the windows to the home wide open, the 

radon levels released by the heat storage bed astounded the DOE researchers 

because they were so elevated.  The homeowner [who was so proud of his 

superinsulated, active solar heated home] refused to permit the researchers back 

in his house upon learning of the elevated radon levels observed to make 

wintertime measurements when the levels would have been even higher since the 

house was buttoned up. The homeowner didn't care the radon levels were elevated 

but claimed completing the study might be "inimical to solar power development" 

and would not cooperate!! As they say denial is not just a river in Egypt. 



Subsequently, when I was requested to assist DOE EML in making additional radon 

measurements inside other solar heated homes with crushed granite heat storage 

reservoirs, I found there was a DOE Solar Development division sponsored active 

solar heated condo complex also in NH with a huge crushed granite heat storage 

reservoir. When I was requested to do so at the EML's behest, I contacted the DOE 

Solar Division administrator and explained why another division of DOE needed his 

assistance in making indoor radon measurements, the DOE solar division 

administrator was incredulous. He asked me how could a solar home have elevated 

levels of airborne radon? I had to explain about the big bang, primordial 

radioactive decay series and U-238 with a 4.5 billion year half life, the uranium 

decay series leading to Ra-226 and Rn-222, the nature of rocks in the earths 

crust, etc. to make him realize this was real. I think for the poor DOE Solar 

administrator it was just TMI [TOO MUCH INFORMATION].  The DOE Solar group 

dragged its feet for 2 years before it finally cooperated with the DOE EML in 

making some indoor radon measurements at the NH DOE solar condo complex. When all 

was said and done, the residents of this solar heated condo complex built with 

DOE/HUD funding had higher airborne radon exposures that uranium miners were 

allowed to receive under federal law. No surprise there since this could have 

been easily calculated based on the pCi of U-238 per gram of granite in NH, the 

escape coefficient for Rn-222 and the air exchange rate in the complex. At the 

time homeowners were getting sizable tax credits to install active solar systems 

including forced hot air systems using granite [as the rock of choice anywhere in 

New England] heat storage reservoirs. Rather droll.



I remember Dick Toohey, a respected scientist and HP, commenting in an HPS short 

course on internal dosimetry some years ago that those in the HP profession who 

dismiss the potential risk of radon in homes, and worry about eliminating 

millirad exposures in their primary job duties should go out and get an honest 

job.



Stewart Farber, MSPH

farbersa@optonline.net

[203] 367-0791



=====================









1/10/03 9:21:34 AM, epirad@mchsi.com wrote:



>Stewart,

>

>BEIR VI's best estimate of the number of lung cancer deaths attributed to radon 

>in the U.S. each year was 15,400 for the exposure-age-duration model and 21,800 

>for the exposure-age-concentration model. Many people take the average and use 

>18,600.  The BEIR VI committee's uncertainty analyses using the constant 

>relative risk model suggested that the number of cases could range from about 

>3,000 to 33,000.  However, the actual 95% upper confidence limit for the 

>exposure-age-concentration model was approximately 38,600, but the committee 

>suggested that such an upper limit was unlikely.   

>

>

>Hi Richard:

>> 

>> To respond to your comment.

>> 

>> The issue of the estimate of 20,000 deaths per year from indoor radon being 

>> upper 

>> bound estimates is only one [small] point about my posting vs. the AARST and 

EPA 

>> claims of harm. The actual risk may be zero but it is probably something above 

>> zero but far less than approximately 20,000 lung cancer deaths per year.

>> 

>> Stewart Farber, MS Public Health

>> ===============

>> 

>> 

>







************************************************************************

You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,

send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu  Put the text "unsubscribe

radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.

You can view the Radsafe archives at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/