5 ms·

Our local library has a Radon detector you can borrow. We did. No Radon... AFAIK the scientific consensus is no amount of radiation exposure is beneficial. The

by nsguy 2y ago

Our local library has a Radon detector you can borrow. We did. No Radon... AFAIK the scientific consensus is no amount of radiation exposure is beneficial. There have been some theories going around about how a small amount of radiation can be beneficial but I think that's been proven not to be true.

oooyay 2y ago
I have one, and a sub slab Radon abatement system. My levels were pretty high for a basement and that was how I learned about Radon. You're 100% correct about that there is no safe level of Radon exposure. The international community decided on "safe levels" because the cost of abatement is far and away from what many countries can afford, but I think they're moving to the "no safe levels" definition this year.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- bcrosby95 2y ago
  The average outdoor radon level is around 0.4. If there's no safe level, how exactly do we plan to abate that?
  - oooyay 2y ago
    You don't. "No safe levels" just means it'll be a health factor because there is no benign amount of Radon. The lowest my house gets is .4 due to ambient Radon, that just is what it is. The only thing you could do is move to somewhere that there's no Radon ATM.
QuarterReptile 2y ago
Citations desperately needed.
- fransje26 2y ago
  Plenty available just a few clicks away, for those eager enough to do a quick search. For the search-adverse readers, here is an introductory discussion on the topic, from a US vs Europe point of view. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2477705/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2477705/
QuarterReptile 2y ago
The consensus does not exist. The LNT model is convenient because it lends itself to easy measurement, and extremely low radiation exposure (e.g. non-nuclear work on a submarine) can't be tied to any specific risk. You wouldn't want an occupational health organization behaving in any other way. On the other hand, LNT utterly fails to address the well-documented trend that people in areas of high background exposure experience lower rates of cancer. The mechanisms of this effect are not understood, though often hypothesized, nor is there any strong argument for a particular upper limit (though plenty of known examples, like smoking and frequent flying, lie beyond it.) I wouldn't advise anyone microdose on radon, nor ignore the risk of radon if you're in the habit of keeping your modern home closed up... but this matter is not settled as you portray. Edit: sorry for my other flippant comment. The confident misunderstanding of science got me a little worked up.

by nsguy 2y ago

oooyay 2y ago

I have one, and a sub slab Radon abatement system. My levels were pretty high for a basement and that was how I learned about Radon. You're 100% correct about that there is no safe level of Radon exposure. The international community decided on "safe levels" because the cost of abatement is far and away from what many countries can afford, but I think they're moving to the "no safe levels" definition this year.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
bcrosby95 2y ago
The average outdoor radon level is around 0.4. If there's no safe level, how exactly do we plan to abate that?
- oooyay 2y ago
  You don't. "No safe levels" just means it'll be a health factor because there is no benign amount of Radon. The lowest my house gets is .4 due to ambient Radon, that just is what it is. The only thing you could do is move to somewhere that there's no Radon ATM.

QuarterReptile 2y ago

Citations desperately needed.

fransje26 2y ago
Plenty available just a few clicks away, for those eager enough to do a quick search. For the search-adverse readers, here is an introductory discussion on the topic, from a US vs Europe point of view. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2477705/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2477705/

QuarterReptile 2y ago

The consensus does not exist. The LNT model is convenient because it lends itself to easy measurement, and extremely low radiation exposure (e.g. non-nuclear work on a submarine) can't be tied to any specific risk. You wouldn't want an occupational health organization behaving in any other way. On the other hand, LNT utterly fails to address the well-documented trend that people in areas of high background exposure experience lower rates of cancer. The mechanisms of this effect are not understood, though often hypothesized, nor is there any strong argument for a particular upper limit (though plenty of known examples, like smoking and frequent flying, lie beyond it.) I wouldn't advise anyone microdose on radon, nor ignore the risk of radon if you're in the habit of keeping your modern home closed up... but this matter is not settled as you portray. Edit: sorry for my other flippant comment. The confident misunderstanding of science got me a little worked up.