Re: Radon Abatement

[Schoenhofer <schoenho@via.at>]

At 08:20 22.11.1996 -0600, you wrote:

>> ------- Forwarded Message Follows -------
>
>Date sent:      Thu, 21 Nov 1996 09:59:14 -0500
>Send reply to:  Association of Physical Plant Administrators
>                <ERAPPA-L@PSUVM.PSU.EDU>
>From:           David Proctor <dproctor@eagle.lhup.edu>
>Subject:        Radon Abatement
>To:             Multiple recipients of list ERAPPA-L <ERAPPA-L@PSUVM.PSU.EDU>
>
>        I am in middle of an unreasonable (in my opinion only) radon scare
>and would appreciate learning of the experiences of others who have been
>through this problem.  What I have is an office area where, with short
>term testing, we have measure radon levels (EPA Protocol avg.) of 5.5 to
>7.7.  I obviously need to do something to abate the levels back down below
>the EPA recommendation of 4.0 but that is not the issue that is giving me
>touble.  My major problem is that one of our professors, who has dealt
>with radon in the past, is recommending that the area be evacuated because
>of the levels measure and before any abatement is started or completed.
>This appears to be an overly conservative opinion and would not be easy to
>accomplish.  This also plays into the desires of the department housed in
>the area....they have wanted to be moved for years and appear to be making
>this a major issue for the University.
>
>        What is reasonable to do with these levels of readings?  Is
>evacuation of the area really needed before abatement is completed?  Any
>help or direction anyone could provide will be greatly appreciated.
>
>David B. Proctor, PE
============================================================================

Dear David, dear radsafers,

I send this to both e-mail addresses, because it might be interesting for
many radsafers as well. I have some problems to start - it is so incredible,
what a sick mind can figure out. It is not an unreasonable scare, it simply
is incredible!! Somebody who create this scare is irresponsible. Who is that
"professor"? What kind of radon has he dealt with? Is he looking for
publicity or does he want to appear on TV? 

Sometimes I use sarcasm to convince people that their opinions cannot be
right - a few radsafers seem not to like it. So let me use instead absurdity
and paradoxes:

The level of 4 pCi/l corresponds to 148 Bq/m3. As far as I understood this
is a level which is in the USA only recommended, but not a legal limit
(maybe I am wrong). Nevertheless 5.5 pCi/l would correspond to 203.5 Bq/m3
and 7.7 pCi/l would correspond to 284.9 Bq/m3. 

Now compare these figures to limits or recommendations set in other
countries: For instance the European Union has a recommendation of a level
not exceeding 200 Bq/m3 (5.4 pCi/l) as a planning level for new houses and a
level of 400 Bq/m3 (10.8 pCi/l) for already existing houses. If the level of
400 Bq/m3 in existing houses is exceeded, then it is recommended to consider
remediation - carefully taking into consideration costs and the application
of simple countermeasures like opening windows more frequently. 

I believe that experts on radon in the European union have at least the same
scientific level and credibility as US experts. Your "expert" wants to
evacuate people from a building at 5.5 pCi/l of radon and the European Union
experts recommend to consider simple countermeasures at a level exceeding
10.8 pCi/l. Since I find it hard to believe that the European experts want
to kill a relatively large portion of the population I rather believe that
your "professor" is not the expert he wants to appear. (Sometimes I also use
plausibility in my argumentation....)

In the Austrian Radon Survey we found in a large granitic area in Austria
that about 17 % of all rooms exceeded the level of 10.8 Bq/l. Should we
evacuate hundreds of thousands of people according to the "professor"? A
comparison showed that especially in this area the incidence of lung cancer
is below the Austrian mean value in spite of similar smoking habits.
(Radsafers should know the work of Bernie Cohen!)

I conclude that there are different recommendations and maybe also
legislation. Exceeding some levels by some percentage does not mean a deadly
danger. A level exceeding recommendations in one country may be well within
the recommendations in another country. 

Let me finally quote a short conversation I had recently. I told a collegue
from another laboratory that the radium-226 concentration in a water sample
which he had submitted for analysis exceeded the maximum permissible
concentration. He asked me, how much in access the value was. I answered,
that it was approximately 50%. He laughed loud and said "We would be happy
if the nitrate concentration in our drinking water samples would not exceed
the MPC by more than 300 %."

Let us put everything in perspective. Maybe some radsafers can use my
argumentation in radon discussion.

Franz
Schoenhofer
Habichergasse 31/7
A-1160 WIEN
AUSTRIA/EUROPE
Tel./Fax:	+43-1-4955308
Tel.:		+43-664-3380333
e-mail:		schoenho@via.at