AW: [ RadSafe ] Re: Residential radon risk

Wed Jun 1 16:12:36 CEST 2005

    My knowledge is largely confined to U.S. mines and U.S. homes. In 
mines, WL is always measured and regulations are based on it. In homes, 
radon levels are always measured and regulations and government 
advisories are based on it. I believe the rationale for these practices 
is as I have stated; at least that is the rationale that motivates me.
    If WL were the important issue, I have shown that radon problems in 
homes would be very easily and cheaply solved by dust elimination 
gadgetry. I see no practical alternative to using radon levels as the 
important indicator for risk in homes. Nothing is perfect, but what is 
the alternative?

Jan Skowronek wrote:

> In general, there is a strong negative correlation between UF and
>the ratio of WL/r (equilibrium factor), or .UF x WL/r  = K, another
>constant. 
>
>In case of radon progeny (in  mines, buildings and other closed areas) you
>have to take into account the plateout effect of radon propgeny on e.g.
>walls, engines etc. - it means that this equation is not valid.
>
> In mines, there is so much dust that one can assume UF = 0,
>
>Basing on Polish experience - it is not true. We found  in underground coal
>mine some places where UF concentration in air reach 20% (average 5.7%) of
>Rn progeny concentration (see proceedings of TENR International Conference
>in Szczyrk, Poland, 1996 - available in Central Mining Institute in
>Katowice)
>
> Moreover, it is much easier to measure r 
>than to measure WL. That is why everyone measures r. .
>
>In Polish mines WL (expressed as potential alpha energy concentration of
>short lived radon progeny - PAEC, microJoules per cubic meter) is measured,
>not radon concentration. We measure simultaneously the dust concentration
>and PAEC, using the typical dust sampler and sampling probe ALFA-31 or
>ALFA-2000 for radon progeny.
>
>
>dr hab. inz. Jan SKOWRONEK 
>Instytut Ekologii Terenów Uprzemyslowionych
>Institute for Ecology of Industrial Areas
>ul. Kossutha 6
>40-844 Katowice/Poland
>tel.: (+48-32) 2540164
>fax: (+48-32) 2541717
>e-mail: jskowronek at ietu.katowice.pl
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl]On Behalf
>Of Bernard Cohen
>Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2005 10:20 PM
>To: Franz Schönhofer
>Cc: 'Otto G. Raabe'; 'Bernard Cohen'; radsafe at radlab.nl
>Subject: Re: AW: [ RadSafe ] Re: Residential radon risk
>
>
>
>
>Franz Schönhofer wrote:
>
>  
>
>>"Why do you ignore my response.....", just a copied phrase from your mail.
>>Do you believe that it is below your scientific level to answer my clearly
>>formulated criticism? Why do you still mention average county radon levels
>>in this post? 
>>
>>    
>>
>          ---Your message was not addressed to me specifically and was 
>not about my work specifically, so I did not feel obligated to respond, 
>butI will respond here.
>    The health effects of radon depend basically on three things, radon 
>gas concentration -r, concentration of radon daughters --WL (working 
>level), and unattached fraction -UF (fraction of radon daughters not 
>attached to a dust particle - this is important because these have a 
>much greater probability of sticking to the bronchial surfaces). In 
>mines, there is so much dust that one can assume UF = 0, so measuring WL 
>gives the health effects. In homes, this is not so. 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. 
>Roughly, health effects, HE = k x WL x UF.where k is a constant
>     In general, there is a strong negative correlation between UF and 
>the ratio of WL/r (equilibrium factor), or .UF x WL/r  = K, another 
>constant.  Combining these two equations, HE = k x K x r, or health 
>effects are proportional to r, HE = k' r. Detailed studies have 
>confirmed this result, and shown that it is much more accurate than 
>assuming HE = k'' x WL. (k' and k'' are new constants)
>    Ideally, one should measure WL and UF, but that is very difficult 
>and is essentially never done. Moreover, it is much easier to measure r 
>than to measure WL. That is why everyone measures r. .
>    In my studies involving hundreds of thousands of measurements of r, 
>it seems reasonable to assume that there is no strong systematic 
>variation in the ratio of r to health effects. If you have reason to 
>think that there might be such a systematic variation, please let me know. 
>
>  
>
>>I insist that it is more than unscientific to claim minor statistical
>>significance, when the data might be wrong by tens of percents.
>>
>>Sorry to say, that I have once admired your way of proofing that others are
>>incorrect, by using their data and showing that they are in disagreement
>>with the claimed results. I have used this tactic very often myself. 
>>
>>In this case I believe that you are working with data (radon
>>concentrations), which are not directly related to your "results" - lung
>>cancer. 
>>
>>Franz
>>
>>
>> 
>>
>> 
>>
>>    
>>
>
>_______________________________________________
>You are currently subscribed to the radsafe mailing list radsafe at radlab.nl
>
>Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the
>RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
>http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html
>
>For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit:
>http://radlab.nl/radsafe/
>  
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>You are currently subscribed to the radsafe mailing list radsafe at radlab.nl
>
>Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html
>
>For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/
>  
>