5 ms·

It can be an issue everywhere, Radon is the second leading cause of lung cancer, after smoking.

by dmicah 3y ago

schiffern 3y ago
This claim (which ultimately came from the EPA) is suspect at best. It just comes from assuming a Linear No-Threshold model, which flatly contradicts the available body of medical evidence. https://youtu.be/TYZglUjLE0Y https://youtu.be/TYZglUjLE0Y
- joshuahedlund 3y ago
  Thanks for posting this, I will check it out. As a Midwesterner with a basement I had once looked into those claims about radon as the second-highest cause of lung cancer with concern and found the evidence much weaker than I expected. Even by EPA estimates[0] almost 90% of the lung cancer deaths attributed to radon are smokers (i.e. who have already weakened lungs), and there didn't seem to be good evidence of damage from basement radon for non-smokers. [0]https://www.epa.gov/radon/health-risk-radon https://www.epa.gov/radon/health-risk-radon
  - schiffern 3y ago
    Let me preemptively disclaim that I do have nitpicks about the talk I linked, but IMO his main argument is sound. In particular I think his scientific explanations aren't always fully accurate, and he worries about measurement minutia very strenuously. Also at one point he says you could breathe 80% radon/20% oxygen, which while chemically this is true, radiologically it would be suicidal. Those nitpicks aside, his point about the EPA LNT model having no clothes is spot on. After "the scales fell from my eyes," now I can't not notice how all those same Party Line Claims get parroted in every piece of radon-related content. Another glimpse down the rabbit hole is this interview with the late Dr Bernie Cohen, who studied the link between residential radon and cancer: https://youtu.be/xhkBLhw-8pk https://youtu.be/xhkBLhw-8pk
    - pfdietz 3y ago
      The alternative to LNT is to conservatively assume radiation has the maximum effect not ruled out by evidence (after all, radiation is not a criminal defendant that's innocent until proven guilty). This would make low level radiation more dangerous than predicted by LNT, not less.
      - schiffern 3y ago
        >The alternative to LNT is to conservatively assume radiation has the maximum effect not ruled out by evidence No, the alternative is to use real data, rather than fabricate fraudulent data to fit the LNT model. Namely, you need to look at the actual shape of the dose-response curve in the real world, instead of externally imposing a certain predetermined shape by fiat and fudging data to fit. Here's one of the relevant timestamps from the talk, which runs on into Part 3.[0] However if I'm being honest, this talk is impossible to capture in a short clip suitable for modern attention spans. My apologies. To keep from getting lost, one really should watch the whole thing before formulating the next counterpoint. Otherwise this will devolve into a very long and boring comment thread, where I laboriously digest the points from the video and feed them to you through an HN comment-sized straw. ;) [0] https://youtu.be/37pCurE0nxo?t=1671 https://youtu.be/37pCurE0nxo?t=1671
        pfdietz 3y ago
        The LNT is consistent with the real world data, cherrypicked bullshit from pseudoscientists notwithstanding. This is why the NRC recently rejected a call to stop using LNT in setting regulations. Their responses to the details of the petitions are pretty damning. https://www.regulations.gov/document/NRC-2015-0057-0671 https://www.regulations.gov/document/NRC-2015-0057-0671 Now, at the very low doses typical of large scale exposure from nuclear accidents, it's true that the evidence does not directly require LNT. That's because the effect predicted by LNT is so small at those doses that it's swamped by noise and unmodelled biases. No practically obtainable data could do the trick. But note what this means: the data at those low doses is so poor that it's consistent with an effect greater than from LNT. It cannot rule this out. I'll add that a favorite pseudoscientific claim from the radiation apologists, radiation hormesis, would imply a larger effect from radiation at low doses than predicted by LNT. That's because hormesis putatively acts by inducing repair mechanisms above some dose, bending the curve downward. Below that putative threshold, the curve has a high slope (and thus more damage per increment of dose) than the linear curve of the LNT.
- pfdietz 3y ago
  Indeed, it's good to be cautious of such claims. Low level radiation could be worse than predicted by the LNT.
- caf 3y ago
  It feels like this is something that should be easily amenable to statistical analysis. Large numbers of people get diagnosed with lung cancer; smoking rates vary widely and smoking is typically recorded in patient histories; typical radon levels vary widely with geography and are recorded / known. This looks like a near perfect natural experiment, no?
  - schiffern 3y ago
    That research was done. The results weren't what regulators expected (wanted?), so we never got to hear them. https://youtu.be/xhkBLhw-8pk https://youtu.be/xhkBLhw-8pk Caveat: the interviewer strikes me as quite flakey, but his reactions highlight how grounded Dr Cohen was.
geoduck14 3y ago
I'm in the middle of moving from Texas to New England. In Texas, Radon is such a "not a problem", that I've never considered it before our move. In New England, our basement tested above the "safe" limit (iirc, 4 somethings), so we are having a venterlator installed for ~$1.4k. In the south, Radon "can" be an issue, but it simply isn't an issue. In New England, it is often an issue.
- NotYourLawyer 3y ago
  Nobody in Texas has basements.
- __MatrixMan__ 3y ago
  Heavy metals in the nearby earth are the obvious parameter here--you need something to decay into radon for there to be radon. But I think another factor has to do with the water table. In some places the water table rises high enough to flood basements, so you don't usually have basements at all in those places, and subsequently you don't have large reservoirs of radon adjacent to living spaces. I know of some people here in CO (where we have decaying granite in the soil) that don't have a basement and still need a radon ventilator, but it's not very common.
- simcop2387 3y ago
  My understanding on why this is, is because in New England there's a lot more granite in the ground. Granite is particularly annoying in that respect because the trace amounts of, i think, uranium and radium that the rock concentrated when it was formed will give off the radon gas when they decay.
  - eichin 3y ago
    and that can mean high outdoor radon levels... a home inspector back in early 2000 told me about a seller sneaking back in and opening basement windows to attempt to pass a radon test (sensors left in the basement over the weekend.) The inspector caught it but let the test run to completion - at which point it failed anyway because the adjacent "forest with exposed granite rocks" was a fine natural radon source...

It can be an issue everywhere, Radon is the second leading cause of lung cancer, after smoking.

by dmicah 3y ago

It can be an issue everywhere, Radon is the second leading cause of lung cancer, after smoking.

This claim (which ultimately came from the EPA) is suspect at best. It just comes from assuming a Linear No-Threshold model, which flatly contradicts the available body of medical evidence. https://youtu.be/TYZglUjLE0Y https://youtu.be/TYZglUjLE0Y

joshuahedlund 3y ago
Thanks for posting this, I will check it out. As a Midwesterner with a basement I had once looked into those claims about radon as the second-highest cause of lung cancer with concern and found the evidence much weaker than I expected. Even by EPA estimates[0] almost 90% of the lung cancer deaths attributed to radon are smokers (i.e. who have already weakened lungs), and there didn't seem to be good evidence of damage from basement radon for non-smokers. [0]https://www.epa.gov/radon/health-risk-radon https://www.epa.gov/radon/health-risk-radon
- schiffern 3y ago
  Let me preemptively disclaim that I do have nitpicks about the talk I linked, but IMO his main argument is sound. In particular I think his scientific explanations aren't always fully accurate, and he worries about measurement minutia very strenuously. Also at one point he says you could breathe 80% radon/20% oxygen, which while chemically this is true, radiologically it would be suicidal. Those nitpicks aside, his point about the EPA LNT model having no clothes is spot on. After "the scales fell from my eyes," now I can't not notice how all those same Party Line Claims get parroted in every piece of radon-related content. Another glimpse down the rabbit hole is this interview with the late Dr Bernie Cohen, who studied the link between residential radon and cancer: https://youtu.be/xhkBLhw-8pk https://youtu.be/xhkBLhw-8pk
  - pfdietz 3y ago
    The alternative to LNT is to conservatively assume radiation has the maximum effect not ruled out by evidence (after all, radiation is not a criminal defendant that's innocent until proven guilty). This would make low level radiation more dangerous than predicted by LNT, not less.
    - schiffern 3y ago
      >The alternative to LNT is to conservatively assume radiation has the maximum effect not ruled out by evidence No, the alternative is to use real data, rather than fabricate fraudulent data to fit the LNT model. Namely, you need to look at the actual shape of the dose-response curve in the real world, instead of externally imposing a certain predetermined shape by fiat and fudging data to fit. Here's one of the relevant timestamps from the talk, which runs on into Part 3.[0] However if I'm being honest, this talk is impossible to capture in a short clip suitable for modern attention spans. My apologies. To keep from getting lost, one really should watch the whole thing before formulating the next counterpoint. Otherwise this will devolve into a very long and boring comment thread, where I laboriously digest the points from the video and feed them to you through an HN comment-sized straw. ;) [0] https://youtu.be/37pCurE0nxo?t=1671 https://youtu.be/37pCurE0nxo?t=1671
      - pfdietz 3y ago
        The LNT is consistent with the real world data, cherrypicked bullshit from pseudoscientists notwithstanding. This is why the NRC recently rejected a call to stop using LNT in setting regulations. Their responses to the details of the petitions are pretty damning. https://www.regulations.gov/document/NRC-2015-0057-0671 https://www.regulations.gov/document/NRC-2015-0057-0671 Now, at the very low doses typical of large scale exposure from nuclear accidents, it's true that the evidence does not directly require LNT. That's because the effect predicted by LNT is so small at those doses that it's swamped by noise and unmodelled biases. No practically obtainable data could do the trick. But note what this means: the data at those low doses is so poor that it's consistent with an effect greater than from LNT. It cannot rule this out. I'll add that a favorite pseudoscientific claim from the radiation apologists, radiation hormesis, would imply a larger effect from radiation at low doses than predicted by LNT. That's because hormesis putatively acts by inducing repair mechanisms above some dose, bending the curve downward. Below that putative threshold, the curve has a high slope (and thus more damage per increment of dose) than the linear curve of the LNT.
pfdietz 3y ago
Indeed, it's good to be cautious of such claims. Low level radiation could be worse than predicted by the LNT.
caf 3y ago
It feels like this is something that should be easily amenable to statistical analysis. Large numbers of people get diagnosed with lung cancer; smoking rates vary widely and smoking is typically recorded in patient histories; typical radon levels vary widely with geography and are recorded / known. This looks like a near perfect natural experiment, no?
- schiffern 3y ago
  That research was done. The results weren't what regulators expected (wanted?), so we never got to hear them. https://youtu.be/xhkBLhw-8pk https://youtu.be/xhkBLhw-8pk Caveat: the interviewer strikes me as quite flakey, but his reactions highlight how grounded Dr Cohen was.

geoduck14 3y ago

I'm in the middle of moving from Texas to New England. In Texas, Radon is such a "not a problem", that I've never considered it before our move. In New England, our basement tested above the "safe" limit (iirc, 4 somethings), so we are having a venterlator installed for ~$1.4k. In the south, Radon "can" be an issue, but it simply isn't an issue. In New England, it is often an issue.

NotYourLawyer 3y ago
Nobody in Texas has basements.
__MatrixMan__ 3y ago
Heavy metals in the nearby earth are the obvious parameter here--you need something to decay into radon for there to be radon. But I think another factor has to do with the water table. In some places the water table rises high enough to flood basements, so you don't usually have basements at all in those places, and subsequently you don't have large reservoirs of radon adjacent to living spaces. I know of some people here in CO (where we have decaying granite in the soil) that don't have a basement and still need a radon ventilator, but it's not very common.
simcop2387 3y ago
My understanding on why this is, is because in New England there's a lot more granite in the ground. Granite is particularly annoying in that respect because the trace amounts of, i think, uranium and radium that the rock concentrated when it was formed will give off the radon gas when they decay.
- eichin 3y ago
  and that can mean high outdoor radon levels... a home inspector back in early 2000 told me about a seller sneaking back in and opening basement windows to attempt to pass a radon test (sensors left in the basement over the weekend.) The inspector caught it but let the test run to completion - at which point it failed anyway because the adjacent "forest with exposed granite rocks" was a fine natural radon source...