Re: Radon in low quality housing

[damcclure@lanl.gov (Donald A. McClure 7-3243 DX-DO)]

Bless you.  I thought I was the only one who felt the way you talk!  I am
not an HP, but I've been doing HP and Rad Safety for so long I can't believe
nobody looks at the epidemological data before they screem DISASTER.

Peace

>I don't understand this continuing discussion. Is there any HP who's reviewed
>the science who thinks indoor radon is "dangerous"? I understand that for
>people who have not reviewed the science, the EPA political nonsense to con
>the gullible would reasonably raise these questions, but this is now a
>question that has been on the _HP_ discussion list for some time and there has 
>been no substantial response to the question of radon risk !  (I was hoping to 
>see a response from the "experts" to add to my view of the data.) 
>
>Anybody read Cohen's 2/95 HPJ article ?  just the latest update on dispositive 
>data that has been produced, commented on, and proven, since the early data
>was published at least since 1988 !  And that's only 1 of several proofs that
>the early uranium miner data, the only supposed connection, can not apply to
>associations with indoor radon (there isn't even any reasonable assurance that 
>the early miners' lung cancer is associated with radon), except to con the
>gullible, politicians and homeowners, of their cash ! 
>
>Of course, this isn't a "model" for "Ask an HP" ?  :-)
>It's the August doldrums.  :-)
>
>Regards, Jim Muckerheide
>
>> Would not the geography or location of where the house is built be of more 
>> concern that the quality of the home.  You can build a great house and a
good 
>> house, it all depends of the neighborhood.....
>> 
>> ______________________________ Reply Separator
_________________________________
>> Subject: Radon in low quality housing 
>> Author:  radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu at hq2ccgw
>> Date:    7/29/95 9:56 AM
>> 
>> The following messages were posted to Safety Net but RADSAFE might have 
>> better response so I have reposted the messages and added a few questions. 
>> Would a Geiger Mueller tube be a good way of measuring the activity in 
>> for this situation? Is there any evidence that siting of low quality 
>> housing on cheap land bemore prone to produce Radon?. The land not being 
>> cheap because of known activity but rather poor locatioin
>> 
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 
>> Date:    Thu, 27 Jul 1995 22:32:40 -0400
>> From:    "James F. Montgomery" <jamesf@GWIS2.CIRC.GWU.EDU> 
>> Subject: Radon in low quality housing
>> 
>> I am researching wether there is an increased risk of exposure to Radon 
>> in low quality housing.  A researcher out of cornell did some work in 
>> 1993 that seemed to indicate that people in low quality housing were at 
>> greater risk, but I haven't seen anything else. Any thoughts?
>> 
>> ------------------------------
>> 
>> Date:    Fri, 28 Jul 1995 08:44:06 PST
>> From:    "E. F. Forrer" <forrere@CCMAIL.ORST.EDU> 
>> Subject: Re[2]: Radon in low quality housing
>> 
>>           It seems that low quality housing, since it tends to be of 
>>           poorer construction, not as well sealed, just plain drafty, 
>>           would not accumulate as many air contaminates as more 
>>           expensive houses which are usually very weather tight.
>> 
>>           Gene
>> 
>> ------------------------------
>> 
>> Someone else suggested that cheap HVAC systems might reduce the ventilation.
>
>