AW: [ RadSafe ] Re: Residential radon risk

[GELSG at aol.com]

Dr. Cohen:
 
I generally agree with your work and conclusions on indoor radon.   However, 
the statement below troubles me.  In theory, in laboratory  conditions, one 
can approach a UF of 1.0.  However, (and I have seen very  little data on this 
point) I have never heard of real world UFs of more than  0.1, much less 1.0.  
If you do have such data, I would like to see  it.  In my house, we always 
seem to have plenty of dust, even with the  electrostatic precipitator running.  
I have always believed that, in the  real world of opening doors and leaking 
windows and cooking and playing  children, there will always be plenty of 
"replacement dust" particles.  In  that case, I would take exception with your 
conclusion about electrostatic  precipitators, and state that they would be a very 
good means of reducing lung  exposure to radon daughters in homes that are 
not laboratory glove boxes.   As such, we should be actively encouraging, not 
discouraging, their use.
 
Gerald Gels
 
_blc+ at pitt.edu_ (mailto:blc+ at pitt.edu)  wrote:
"As an example, one 
can drastically reduce the WL by removing the dust (for example, with an  
electrostatic precipitator), but the newly formed radon daughters have  
no dust to attach to, so UF = 1.0, and the danger is not  reduced."