20 ms·

The second leading cause of lung cancer is radon. My high schooler came home and said her science teacher said everyone should do a radon test. I scoffed, but h

The second leading cause of lung cancer is radon. My high schooler came home and said her science teacher said everyone should do a radon test. I scoffed, but humored her by getting a kit from Home Depot and sending it away to a lab. The results came back very high. So I purchased an electronic radon monitor and it showed almost the exact same results. Well, crap. I installed a radon mitigation system and now the numbers are almost nil.

Waterluvian 1y ago
The difficult thing for me is that while I believe radon can cause lung cancer, I think products are often sold based on fear. “Second leading cause” doesn’t really mean anything in isolation, does it? What slice of my mortality pie was radon before and after spending $5000? Could I spend $5000 to cut a bigger slice out of it in another way, like eating better or hiring a grizzly bear to make me exercise more often? I think action is better than decision paralysis, but I wish I could make much more informed decisions.
- irrational 1y ago
  $5000? I got a bunch of quotes and none came anywhere near that high and I live in a home that made it difficult to install the system (finished basement, large footprint, three stories tall, concrete outer walls (ICF), etc. I think the highest was $3,000 and the lowest $1,600. I ended up installing it myself for about $500 in materials.
  - Waterluvian 1y ago
    It’ll vary considerably. But I just picked a random round number that doesn’t affect the point I’m sharing.
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
  - zamadatix 1y ago
    That's only the initial capex though. $5,000 is a realistic swag for install + lifetime electricity + minor system maintenance.
    - bradlys 1y ago
      These fans are not using $3000 in electricity over their lifetime.
      - zamadatix 1y ago
        I guess that depends how old you are when you install it and how long you plan to live but ~$7 per month is not at all an unrealistic electricity usage estimate for the system. 7*12*35 = $2,940. Edit: E.g. the numbers from this site suggest, for 15 out of the 16 listed fan models, the lifetime electricity cost is likely to be significantly larger than the install cost unless you are already much older at the time you start using the system or you have extremely cheap electricity (or both) https://www.radonaway.com/radon-fan-operating-cost-calculator https://www.radonaway.com/radon-fan-operating-cost-calculato...
        dgfitz 1y ago
        This point always amuses me. Thats like, 1 starbucks coffee a month, or 1 trip to a fast food place a month, or one extra thing at the grocery store a month, or half a movie ticket a month, or half a streaming service a month, or less than half an LLM subscription a month, I could go on for a while. For the cost, preventing cancer seems like it's a wise investment. I say this as a cancer survivor.
        Waterluvian 1y ago
        But it doesn’t prevent cancer. It lowers the risk of a specific kind of cancer by some amount. Is it $650 worth? That’s what I’m stuck on. People just go by vibe and say things like “it’s a good investment” but that’s just coming from I don’t know where.
- pkaye 1y ago
  Here is something I found comparing the risk of radon exposure to other risks. Seems like if you don't smoke the risks are much lower. https://www.epa.gov/radon/health-risk-radon https://www.epa.gov/radon/health-risk-radon
- aorloff 1y ago
  I might not be in as tight with the grizzlies, but $5k a year for a personal bear trainer seems a bit low. For a regular brown bear sure, but the grizzlies are expensive
  - labster 1y ago
    Yeah but no matter what, you gotta pay for the bear necessities.
- zamadatix 1y ago
  For 93% of people the only cost is the $15 test kit to verify "yep, don't need to even think about it". For the other 7% that then need to really do a cost-benefit the data is out there but you do need to go through your specific circumstances to get a meaningful number. The risk levels vary vastly (orders of magnitudes) between both the radon level and your life choices/situation, so it's relatively meaningless to share individual cost-benefit analyses.
  - jychang 1y ago
    Yeah, this is the correct heuristic. Spend $15 or $100 for one or two measurements, *then* worry about cost to mitigate.
    - SOLAR_FIELDS 1y ago
      Advice also applies to mold. A lot of people worry about mold in their house. It's actually quite straightforward to determine if this is actually a problem: Home Depot sells "test kits" for a few bucks that are essentially petri dishes. Buy two of these, put one inside where you are worried and then the other outside and wait 3-4 days. If they look radically different, then send the inside one in for actual analysis, which is an additional ~$40 USD. Then and only then do you need to action and by that point you know exactly what the problem is so you don't have to pay some "expert" to sell you some massively expensive mitigation strategy that you probably don't need.
      - pjc50 1y ago
        Is it common to have an invisible mould problem? Lots of people are in the situation where there is really visible mould but the problem is getting their landlord to fix it, without getting into allegations over drying clothes inside etc.
        jajko 1y ago
        I would expect that mold can build up ie in ventilation where it remains unseen unless it literally clogs he whole system. You can't see the spores an often there is no strong foul smell.
- ok_computer 1y ago
  Radon fan drawing from two basement surfaces (concrete slab crawlspace addition and original stone foundation with cement floor): $1,200.00 usd in 2020 with warrantied fan and included confirmation test kit. US mid Atlantic. The prior homeowner thought radon was a scam too. It doesn’t make sense as a scam for a one-time capital and labor purchase.
- necheffa 1y ago
  > What slice of my mortality pie was radon before and after spending $5000? You'll never know. The same way people in the exclusion zone will never know if their thyroid cancer was always destined to be or if it really was related to the Chernobyl meltdown. But spending (closer to $1000) to mitigate some risk from a known threat vector does seem thrifty.
  - thaumasiotes 1y ago
    > But spending (closer to $1000) to mitigate some risk from a known threat vector does seem thrifty. No, there are a lot of known threat vectors.
- furyofantares 1y ago
  I'm with you on wanting to quantify. https://www.epa.gov/radon/health-risk-radon https://www.epa.gov/radon/health-risk-radon Scroll down to "Radon Risk If You Have Never Smoked". Looks pretty worthwhile to take it from "very high" to "almost nil". If "very high" was in the range of the 2nd highest level listed here, that's 2% chance. That's for lifetime exposure but there's also multiple people living in the house. If you DO smoke, the numbers look VERY good for spending some cash to get rid of radon. (Of course you should also stop smoking.)
  - Waterluvian 1y ago
    That’s exactly the kind of information I was seeking! If your results come back at some ridiculous level, it could make complete sense. But if your results come back much closer to normal background levels, there’s not much you can do. Even the EPA says it’s difficult to get it below 2. Meanwhile, lots of websites out there try to scare you into buying remediation for low values (see comment below). It’s the perfect bogeyman. Radon. Cancer. Invisible silent killer. And I think it’s demonstrated by the vibe-based “seems like a good idea” conclusions in these comments.
    - menaerus 1y ago
      I never heard of the radon cancer impact before and it took me 10 minutes to find couple of representative studies done for my local region which in fact did find the positive correlation between the areas with elevated radon measurements and people living in those areas getting the lung cancer. So, not that "it could make complete sense" but it certainly makes sense. I suggest you do the same research before calling out something as important as this a scam.
    - ImPostingOnHN 1y ago
      I think that if you start from the belief that radon mitigation is sold based on fear, and doesn't have value, then it's easy to cling to that belief and try to dismiss or explain away or minimize information that contradicts it, and to dismiss people who see value in it as 'fear buyers' who believe in a 'bogeyman' and say 'good idea' to things which, in your opinion, might not be good ideas. A perspective perhaps different from yours: Avoidable cancer risk isn't great, and smart people* properly weighing the facts have repeatedly judged the value of radon mitigation to exceed the costs. * - Probabilistically speaking, this includes many who are smarter than you and me
- devjab 1y ago
  Radon gas is a pretty big thing in construction where I live since our underground is mainly boulder clay (which apparently has or leaks or whatever a lot of radon gas). Anyway, In Denmark a little over 5000 get lung cancer every year, and 300 of thouse are from radon gas. Acording to our Kræftens Bekæmpelse (anti-cancer NGO) there may be an additional 25% risk of radon causing lung cancer if you smoke. Since around 2000, it's been part of building regulations that you gotta build air-gapped foundations in family homes. Those who can measure radon gas are adviced to buy things to fight it, and you can reduce it to basically 0% for little money. I never really considered it from an advertisement perspective as it's adviced by our government and non-profit NGO's. So there is that, if that helps you.
  - dathinab 1y ago
    > and you can reduce it to basically 0% for little money. which is why I'm confused by people second questioning how bad it actually is in context of _fixing_ it (not in context of a national health scope) if there is something which is known to be quite unhealthy in a non small degree, and there is a cheap fix why wouldn't you just fix it. In the end if it's very bad, or slightly less bad or the 10th leading cause instead or whatever doesn't matter, fixing it is affordable and it's guaranteed dangerous on long term exposure so you do it.
    - kelnos 1y ago
      Is radon mitigation affordable, though? Someone in another subthread said they got quotes between $1600 and $3000. Even the low end of that is a difficult amount to spend for a lot of people in the US. If they're going to spend it (if they even can), they're going to want to know it's going to meaningfully decrease their risk of cancer. I'm not saying it's not worth it -- that's the point, I don't know -- but I agree with people upthread that it would be nice to have better information with which to make decisions.
      - samus 1y ago
        It might be significantly cheaper if installed in new buildings. Even if not, it barely moves the needle compared to the total cost of building a house, and it's almost nothing spread across the lifetime of a typical building.
- safety1st 1y ago
  My approach is to think carefully about exactly what I want to know, word the question that way, then throw it to the AI and pray. I think this is better than ignoring it or spending too much time on it. Question: Where does radon related mortality rank versus other mortality factors in the United States? <AI "reasons" a bit> ... Summary: Radon in perspective Category / Cause Approx. Deaths per Year (U.S.) Rank / Context Heart disease ~680,000 #1 overall cause of death Cancer (all causes) ~613,000 #2 overall cause Chronic lower respiratory disease ~145,000 #5 overall (includes COPD, etc.) Lung cancer due to radon ~20,000–21,000 Subset of cancer deaths; about 3–4% Toxic agents (inc. radon, pollutants) ~55,000 ~2.3% of all deaths (includes radon part) So AI says it's a bit less than 1% of preventable deaths (or something) annually. Probably puts it in the top 150 causes or so. What you want to do with that hypothesis, or whether you want to spend time sanity checking it, is up to you. Hitting the gym to avoid heart disease is like 35 times more important. A radon home testing kit to eliminate uncertainty about this particular <1% risk is a one time cheap thing though.
  - safety1st 1y ago
    What the hell would someone downvote this for lol. Freaking Hacker News
    - ImPostingOnHN 1y ago
      Why bring up the AI at all, if you're also making those claims and vouching for that info?
- falcor84 1y ago
  I was actually thinking of getting one too. Is there a particular Grizzly-as-a-service offering that you recommend? I'm also considering signing up for Ostrich-as-a-service, and am really struggling with this decision.
- wvh 1y ago
  I reckon grizzly bears have negative health side effects too... It's all a fine balancing act.
- reverendsteveii 1y ago
  what's stopping you from getting answers for these questions?
- londons_explore 1y ago
  > What slice of my mortality pie was radon before and after spending $5000? Could I spend $5000 to cut a bigger slice out of it in another way, like eating better or hiring a grizzly bear to make me exercise more often? I wish more people thought like this. Every time I go to the GP I want to get a printout of my mortality pie based on everything they know about me.
barbazoo 1y ago
Folks, check out your local library, ours has radon test devices.
- YZF 1y ago
  Same (Canada).
Ancalagon 1y ago
I am super uneducated on this, but I thought radon was only a concern for people with brick homes or basements?
- johncolanduoni 1y ago
  It has more to do with the land you’re built on, though basements make it worse.
- jchw 1y ago
  I have a brick house and a basement, and I have no radon mitigation system, and I live in an area where radon is generally a concern (southeast Michigan.) Over the last couple years I've had some AirThings sensors collecting data. Last month: - The one-day average radon concentration detected by the basement sensor crossed over 3 pCi/L once... for a very brief period. Around 80% of the time, the one-day average radon concentration detected by the basement sensor was below 2 pCi/L. - The one-day average radon concentration detected by the main floor sensor never reached 3 pCi/L and was rarely above 2 pCi/L. In fact, since January, the main floor sensor has still never reached 3 pCi/L even once, or really gotten all that close. The basement sensor, on the other hand, has reached 4 pCi/L three times this year, with a peak at 5.1 pCi/L for a brief period in May. I hardly ever check this data, but it is nice to have it. I guess it would probably be wise to double check some other way to make sure that the AirThings sensors are outputting good information, but I have little reason to doubt it. As long as I'm interpreting the data right, though, it suggests that despite having some of the worst case scenarios for my house, actually it's fine. So I guess it really does depend mostly on the land you're built on. (That, and, you should probably just check instead of guessing.)
  - ragingroosevelt 1y ago
    My understanding is that a radon reading of 2 is the upper bound for reasonable regular exposure. If you're seeing above that, I'd be inclined to look into mitigation.
    - jchw 1y ago
gerdesj 1y ago
"The second leading cause of lung cancer is radon" Perhaps. I smoked for 30 years and I lived on and off in Devon for at least 15 years. There is a bloody great pluton underneath Dartmoor in Devon and Bodmin in Cornwall and so on. Hence lots of lovely granite and radon and stuff. This is the SW of England (UK). Radon emanates out of the earth and pools in cellars and the like and is a major health hazard. Ideally you know about the hazard and dissipate it. A simple fan will do the job. I'm not sure it is the second leading cause of lung cancer. There are plenty of other pollutants to worry about.
SubiculumCode 1y ago
My daughter wanted to live in the basement area, so I had it tested for radon even though I guess radon is less common where I live. It came back negative, so I feel okay about it...man, the things you need to remember to think about in life.
madaxe_again 1y ago
I’d argue that the leading cause is actually genetics. I come from a long line of people who smoked like chimneys from their teens until their 90s, with no cancers. My mother has spent her life in harsh sun with no sunscreen, and looks like an old handbag, but has entirely clear skin - but her partner, who wears strong sunblock, hats, and all the rest, has had skin cancer twice. So have two of his kids. Meanwhile, my father’s second wife’s family have pretty much all had or succumbed to lung cancer. None of them smoke, and unless they all coincidentally chose radon-riddled homes in different corners of the U.S., there’s no correlative environmental cause - which leaves genetics.
- menaerus 1y ago
  And you base your conclusion on top of the sample size of what, N=10?
  - madaxe_again 1y ago
    No, on the fact that there are plenty of known variants which increase the chance of lung cancer quite dramatically - moreso than smoking. It’s not just lungs - things like FAP make your chance of getting colon cancer in your lifetime near to 100%, regardless of how many ginseng enemas you have or whatever the hell else you do. Variants like TP53 (Li-Fraumeni) or EGFR mutations have measurable, population-level impacts on cancer risk. Genetics loads the gun. Being alive then pulls the trigger.
    - menaerus 1y ago
      > No, on the fact that there are plenty of known variants which increase the chance of lung cancer quite dramatically - moreso than smoking. But didn't you just say that it is the genetics and not the radon and/or smoking? Can you give some examples of those "plenty of known variants" for lung cancer?
      - madaxe_again 1y ago
        EGFR, as mentioned - it’s the most common cause of lung cancer in East Asian women. TP53, as also mentioned - gives you a >90% chance of cancer of any variety in a lifetime. 50% by age 30. Smoking presents about a 20% lifetime risk - and that’s without adjusting for genetic predispositions like CHRNA3/5 which increase nicotine addictiveness and promote tumorigenisis, or BRCA2, or CHEK2, which diminish DNA repair capabilities.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
kensai 1y ago
I think Radon exposure is a serious matter, but its concentration in the USA either is probably overrated OR indeed you have a local geological problem. In Europe we even have the tradition of Radon Therapy for certain pathologies in Spa. Of course, one should do these therapies under medical consultation. https://www.alpentherme.com/en/therapy-health/therapy/radon-therapy https://www.alpentherme.com/en/therapy-health/therapy/radon-...
- MengerSponge 1y ago
  In the early 20th century America also used to have lots of radiation therapy providers. It's quackery, and harmful quackery at that. Just because you have a tradition of something doesn't mean it's effective. Or safe. Or wise.
  - kensai 1y ago
    People with rheumatological diseases beg to differ. I understand nowadays it's a little bit odd, given the more sophisticated technological therapies that exist, but getting exposure to radon in certain calculated doses is how it was supposed to work. I agree that the mechanism of "radiation hormesis" is kind of weak, but it has not been disproved as quackery either. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_hormesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_hormesis
- infecto 1y ago
  Absolutely bunk science with no real evidence supporting. It’s like saying autism is created from vaccines. A lot of the US has radon exposure. I don’t how people come out saying things like you do but at the end of the day it’s exposure to radiation. I have seen it all, people will say it only impacts children or the elderly. Or that it’s an overblown conspiracy. Radon is radioactive, I am sure there are discussions on safe exposure levels but mitigation is so inexpensive and normalized why risk it.
  - kensai 1y ago
    Not on the same level as autism correlated to vaccines. And radiation hormesis has not been disproved as "bunk science" as far as it is widely known. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_hormesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_hormesis
boringg 1y ago
So what is the necessary levels of exposure to have some kind of long term implications? With hand wavy claims to drive fear that certainly will make a pump in radon kits + drive more radon mitigation systems. I've always been under the impression that there was radon in basements since it settles down there ... maybe the correlation is people who spend long periods of time in the basement with radon exposure (thats a guess fwiw).
- Karawebnetwork 1y ago
  Canada has a great website about radon: https://www.canada.ca/radon https://www.canada.ca/radon https://takeactiononradon.ca/ https://takeactiononradon.ca/
TurkishPoptart 1y ago
What's a radon mitigation system like?

Waterluvian 1y ago

The difficult thing for me is that while I believe radon can cause lung cancer, I think products are often sold based on fear. “Second leading cause” doesn’t really mean anything in isolation, does it? What slice of my mortality pie was radon before and after spending $5000? Could I spend $5000 to cut a bigger slice out of it in another way, like eating better or hiring a grizzly bear to make me exercise more often? I think action is better than decision paralysis, but I wish I could make much more informed decisions.

irrational 1y ago
$5000? I got a bunch of quotes and none came anywhere near that high and I live in a home that made it difficult to install the system (finished basement, large footprint, three stories tall, concrete outer walls (ICF), etc. I think the highest was $3,000 and the lowest $1,600. I ended up installing it myself for about $500 in materials.
- Waterluvian 1y ago
  It’ll vary considerably. But I just picked a random round number that doesn’t affect the point I’m sharing.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
- zamadatix 1y ago
  That's only the initial capex though. $5,000 is a realistic swag for install + lifetime electricity + minor system maintenance.
  - bradlys 1y ago
    These fans are not using $3000 in electricity over their lifetime.
    - zamadatix 1y ago
      I guess that depends how old you are when you install it and how long you plan to live but ~$7 per month is not at all an unrealistic electricity usage estimate for the system. 7*12*35 = $2,940. Edit: E.g. the numbers from this site suggest, for 15 out of the 16 listed fan models, the lifetime electricity cost is likely to be significantly larger than the install cost unless you are already much older at the time you start using the system or you have extremely cheap electricity (or both) https://www.radonaway.com/radon-fan-operating-cost-calculator https://www.radonaway.com/radon-fan-operating-cost-calculato...
      - dgfitz 1y ago
        This point always amuses me. Thats like, 1 starbucks coffee a month, or 1 trip to a fast food place a month, or one extra thing at the grocery store a month, or half a movie ticket a month, or half a streaming service a month, or less than half an LLM subscription a month, I could go on for a while. For the cost, preventing cancer seems like it's a wise investment. I say this as a cancer survivor.
        Waterluvian 1y ago
        But it doesn’t prevent cancer. It lowers the risk of a specific kind of cancer by some amount. Is it $650 worth? That’s what I’m stuck on. People just go by vibe and say things like “it’s a good investment” but that’s just coming from I don’t know where.
pkaye 1y ago
Here is something I found comparing the risk of radon exposure to other risks. Seems like if you don't smoke the risks are much lower. https://www.epa.gov/radon/health-risk-radon https://www.epa.gov/radon/health-risk-radon
aorloff 1y ago
I might not be in as tight with the grizzlies, but $5k a year for a personal bear trainer seems a bit low. For a regular brown bear sure, but the grizzlies are expensive
- labster 1y ago
  Yeah but no matter what, you gotta pay for the bear necessities.
zamadatix 1y ago
For 93% of people the only cost is the $15 test kit to verify "yep, don't need to even think about it". For the other 7% that then need to really do a cost-benefit the data is out there but you do need to go through your specific circumstances to get a meaningful number. The risk levels vary vastly (orders of magnitudes) between both the radon level and your life choices/situation, so it's relatively meaningless to share individual cost-benefit analyses.
- jychang 1y ago
  Yeah, this is the correct heuristic. Spend $15 or $100 for one or two measurements, *then* worry about cost to mitigate.
  - SOLAR_FIELDS 1y ago
    Advice also applies to mold. A lot of people worry about mold in their house. It's actually quite straightforward to determine if this is actually a problem: Home Depot sells "test kits" for a few bucks that are essentially petri dishes. Buy two of these, put one inside where you are worried and then the other outside and wait 3-4 days. If they look radically different, then send the inside one in for actual analysis, which is an additional ~$40 USD. Then and only then do you need to action and by that point you know exactly what the problem is so you don't have to pay some "expert" to sell you some massively expensive mitigation strategy that you probably don't need.
    - pjc50 1y ago
      Is it common to have an invisible mould problem? Lots of people are in the situation where there is really visible mould but the problem is getting their landlord to fix it, without getting into allegations over drying clothes inside etc.
      - jajko 1y ago
        I would expect that mold can build up ie in ventilation where it remains unseen unless it literally clogs he whole system. You can't see the spores an often there is no strong foul smell.
ok_computer 1y ago
Radon fan drawing from two basement surfaces (concrete slab crawlspace addition and original stone foundation with cement floor): $1,200.00 usd in 2020 with warrantied fan and included confirmation test kit. US mid Atlantic. The prior homeowner thought radon was a scam too. It doesn’t make sense as a scam for a one-time capital and labor purchase.
necheffa 1y ago
> What slice of my mortality pie was radon before and after spending $5000? You'll never know. The same way people in the exclusion zone will never know if their thyroid cancer was always destined to be or if it really was related to the Chernobyl meltdown. But spending (closer to $1000) to mitigate some risk from a known threat vector does seem thrifty.
- thaumasiotes 1y ago
  > But spending (closer to $1000) to mitigate some risk from a known threat vector does seem thrifty. No, there are a lot of known threat vectors.
furyofantares 1y ago
I'm with you on wanting to quantify. https://www.epa.gov/radon/health-risk-radon https://www.epa.gov/radon/health-risk-radon Scroll down to "Radon Risk If You Have Never Smoked". Looks pretty worthwhile to take it from "very high" to "almost nil". If "very high" was in the range of the 2nd highest level listed here, that's 2% chance. That's for lifetime exposure but there's also multiple people living in the house. If you DO smoke, the numbers look VERY good for spending some cash to get rid of radon. (Of course you should also stop smoking.)
- Waterluvian 1y ago
  That’s exactly the kind of information I was seeking! If your results come back at some ridiculous level, it could make complete sense. But if your results come back much closer to normal background levels, there’s not much you can do. Even the EPA says it’s difficult to get it below 2. Meanwhile, lots of websites out there try to scare you into buying remediation for low values (see comment below). It’s the perfect bogeyman. Radon. Cancer. Invisible silent killer. And I think it’s demonstrated by the vibe-based “seems like a good idea” conclusions in these comments.
  - menaerus 1y ago
    I never heard of the radon cancer impact before and it took me 10 minutes to find couple of representative studies done for my local region which in fact did find the positive correlation between the areas with elevated radon measurements and people living in those areas getting the lung cancer. So, not that "it could make complete sense" but it certainly makes sense. I suggest you do the same research before calling out something as important as this a scam.
  - ImPostingOnHN 1y ago
    I think that if you start from the belief that radon mitigation is sold based on fear, and doesn't have value, then it's easy to cling to that belief and try to dismiss or explain away or minimize information that contradicts it, and to dismiss people who see value in it as 'fear buyers' who believe in a 'bogeyman' and say 'good idea' to things which, in your opinion, might not be good ideas. A perspective perhaps different from yours: Avoidable cancer risk isn't great, and smart people* properly weighing the facts have repeatedly judged the value of radon mitigation to exceed the costs. * - Probabilistically speaking, this includes many who are smarter than you and me
devjab 1y ago
Radon gas is a pretty big thing in construction where I live since our underground is mainly boulder clay (which apparently has or leaks or whatever a lot of radon gas). Anyway, In Denmark a little over 5000 get lung cancer every year, and 300 of thouse are from radon gas. Acording to our Kræftens Bekæmpelse (anti-cancer NGO) there may be an additional 25% risk of radon causing lung cancer if you smoke. Since around 2000, it's been part of building regulations that you gotta build air-gapped foundations in family homes. Those who can measure radon gas are adviced to buy things to fight it, and you can reduce it to basically 0% for little money. I never really considered it from an advertisement perspective as it's adviced by our government and non-profit NGO's. So there is that, if that helps you.
- dathinab 1y ago
  > and you can reduce it to basically 0% for little money. which is why I'm confused by people second questioning how bad it actually is in context of _fixing_ it (not in context of a national health scope) if there is something which is known to be quite unhealthy in a non small degree, and there is a cheap fix why wouldn't you just fix it. In the end if it's very bad, or slightly less bad or the 10th leading cause instead or whatever doesn't matter, fixing it is affordable and it's guaranteed dangerous on long term exposure so you do it.
  - kelnos 1y ago
    Is radon mitigation affordable, though? Someone in another subthread said they got quotes between $1600 and $3000. Even the low end of that is a difficult amount to spend for a lot of people in the US. If they're going to spend it (if they even can), they're going to want to know it's going to meaningfully decrease their risk of cancer. I'm not saying it's not worth it -- that's the point, I don't know -- but I agree with people upthread that it would be nice to have better information with which to make decisions.
    - samus 1y ago
      It might be significantly cheaper if installed in new buildings. Even if not, it barely moves the needle compared to the total cost of building a house, and it's almost nothing spread across the lifetime of a typical building.
safety1st 1y ago
My approach is to think carefully about exactly what I want to know, word the question that way, then throw it to the AI and pray. I think this is better than ignoring it or spending too much time on it. Question: Where does radon related mortality rank versus other mortality factors in the United States? <AI "reasons" a bit> ... Summary: Radon in perspective Category / Cause Approx. Deaths per Year (U.S.) Rank / Context Heart disease ~680,000 #1 overall cause of death Cancer (all causes) ~613,000 #2 overall cause Chronic lower respiratory disease ~145,000 #5 overall (includes COPD, etc.) Lung cancer due to radon ~20,000–21,000 Subset of cancer deaths; about 3–4% Toxic agents (inc. radon, pollutants) ~55,000 ~2.3% of all deaths (includes radon part) So AI says it's a bit less than 1% of preventable deaths (or something) annually. Probably puts it in the top 150 causes or so. What you want to do with that hypothesis, or whether you want to spend time sanity checking it, is up to you. Hitting the gym to avoid heart disease is like 35 times more important. A radon home testing kit to eliminate uncertainty about this particular <1% risk is a one time cheap thing though.
- safety1st 1y ago
  What the hell would someone downvote this for lol. Freaking Hacker News
  - ImPostingOnHN 1y ago
    Why bring up the AI at all, if you're also making those claims and vouching for that info?
falcor84 1y ago
I was actually thinking of getting one too. Is there a particular Grizzly-as-a-service offering that you recommend? I'm also considering signing up for Ostrich-as-a-service, and am really struggling with this decision.
wvh 1y ago
I reckon grizzly bears have negative health side effects too... It's all a fine balancing act.
reverendsteveii 1y ago
what's stopping you from getting answers for these questions?
londons_explore 1y ago
> What slice of my mortality pie was radon before and after spending $5000? Could I spend $5000 to cut a bigger slice out of it in another way, like eating better or hiring a grizzly bear to make me exercise more often? I wish more people thought like this. Every time I go to the GP I want to get a printout of my mortality pie based on everything they know about me.

barbazoo 1y ago

Folks, check out your local library, ours has radon test devices.

YZF 1y ago
Same (Canada).

Ancalagon 1y ago

I am super uneducated on this, but I thought radon was only a concern for people with brick homes or basements?

johncolanduoni 1y ago
It has more to do with the land you’re built on, though basements make it worse.
jchw 1y ago
I have a brick house and a basement, and I have no radon mitigation system, and I live in an area where radon is generally a concern (southeast Michigan.) Over the last couple years I've had some AirThings sensors collecting data. Last month: - The one-day average radon concentration detected by the basement sensor crossed over 3 pCi/L once... for a very brief period. Around 80% of the time, the one-day average radon concentration detected by the basement sensor was below 2 pCi/L. - The one-day average radon concentration detected by the main floor sensor never reached 3 pCi/L and was rarely above 2 pCi/L. In fact, since January, the main floor sensor has still never reached 3 pCi/L even once, or really gotten all that close. The basement sensor, on the other hand, has reached 4 pCi/L three times this year, with a peak at 5.1 pCi/L for a brief period in May. I hardly ever check this data, but it is nice to have it. I guess it would probably be wise to double check some other way to make sure that the AirThings sensors are outputting good information, but I have little reason to doubt it. As long as I'm interpreting the data right, though, it suggests that despite having some of the worst case scenarios for my house, actually it's fine. So I guess it really does depend mostly on the land you're built on. (That, and, you should probably just check instead of guessing.)
- ragingroosevelt 1y ago
  My understanding is that a radon reading of 2 is the upper bound for reasonable regular exposure. If you're seeing above that, I'd be inclined to look into mitigation.
  - jchw 1y ago

gerdesj 1y ago

"The second leading cause of lung cancer is radon" Perhaps. I smoked for 30 years and I lived on and off in Devon for at least 15 years. There is a bloody great pluton underneath Dartmoor in Devon and Bodmin in Cornwall and so on. Hence lots of lovely granite and radon and stuff. This is the SW of England (UK). Radon emanates out of the earth and pools in cellars and the like and is a major health hazard. Ideally you know about the hazard and dissipate it. A simple fan will do the job. I'm not sure it is the second leading cause of lung cancer. There are plenty of other pollutants to worry about.

SubiculumCode 1y ago

My daughter wanted to live in the basement area, so I had it tested for radon even though I guess radon is less common where I live. It came back negative, so I feel okay about it...man, the things you need to remember to think about in life.

madaxe_again 1y ago

I’d argue that the leading cause is actually genetics. I come from a long line of people who smoked like chimneys from their teens until their 90s, with no cancers. My mother has spent her life in harsh sun with no sunscreen, and looks like an old handbag, but has entirely clear skin - but her partner, who wears strong sunblock, hats, and all the rest, has had skin cancer twice. So have two of his kids. Meanwhile, my father’s second wife’s family have pretty much all had or succumbed to lung cancer. None of them smoke, and unless they all coincidentally chose radon-riddled homes in different corners of the U.S., there’s no correlative environmental cause - which leaves genetics.

menaerus 1y ago
And you base your conclusion on top of the sample size of what, N=10?
- madaxe_again 1y ago
  No, on the fact that there are plenty of known variants which increase the chance of lung cancer quite dramatically - moreso than smoking. It’s not just lungs - things like FAP make your chance of getting colon cancer in your lifetime near to 100%, regardless of how many ginseng enemas you have or whatever the hell else you do. Variants like TP53 (Li-Fraumeni) or EGFR mutations have measurable, population-level impacts on cancer risk. Genetics loads the gun. Being alive then pulls the trigger.
  - menaerus 1y ago
    > No, on the fact that there are plenty of known variants which increase the chance of lung cancer quite dramatically - moreso than smoking. But didn't you just say that it is the genetics and not the radon and/or smoking? Can you give some examples of those "plenty of known variants" for lung cancer?
    - madaxe_again 1y ago
      EGFR, as mentioned - it’s the most common cause of lung cancer in East Asian women. TP53, as also mentioned - gives you a >90% chance of cancer of any variety in a lifetime. 50% by age 30. Smoking presents about a 20% lifetime risk - and that’s without adjusting for genetic predispositions like CHRNA3/5 which increase nicotine addictiveness and promote tumorigenisis, or BRCA2, or CHEK2, which diminish DNA repair capabilities.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

kensai 1y ago

I think Radon exposure is a serious matter, but its concentration in the USA either is probably overrated OR indeed you have a local geological problem. In Europe we even have the tradition of Radon Therapy for certain pathologies in Spa. Of course, one should do these therapies under medical consultation. https://www.alpentherme.com/en/therapy-health/therapy/radon-therapy https://www.alpentherme.com/en/therapy-health/therapy/radon-...

MengerSponge 1y ago
In the early 20th century America also used to have lots of radiation therapy providers. It's quackery, and harmful quackery at that. Just because you have a tradition of something doesn't mean it's effective. Or safe. Or wise.
- kensai 1y ago
  People with rheumatological diseases beg to differ. I understand nowadays it's a little bit odd, given the more sophisticated technological therapies that exist, but getting exposure to radon in certain calculated doses is how it was supposed to work. I agree that the mechanism of "radiation hormesis" is kind of weak, but it has not been disproved as quackery either. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_hormesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_hormesis
infecto 1y ago
Absolutely bunk science with no real evidence supporting. It’s like saying autism is created from vaccines. A lot of the US has radon exposure. I don’t how people come out saying things like you do but at the end of the day it’s exposure to radiation. I have seen it all, people will say it only impacts children or the elderly. Or that it’s an overblown conspiracy. Radon is radioactive, I am sure there are discussions on safe exposure levels but mitigation is so inexpensive and normalized why risk it.
- kensai 1y ago
  Not on the same level as autism correlated to vaccines. And radiation hormesis has not been disproved as "bunk science" as far as it is widely known. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_hormesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_hormesis

boringg 1y ago

So what is the necessary levels of exposure to have some kind of long term implications? With hand wavy claims to drive fear that certainly will make a pump in radon kits + drive more radon mitigation systems. I've always been under the impression that there was radon in basements since it settles down there ... maybe the correlation is people who spend long periods of time in the basement with radon exposure (thats a guess fwiw).

Karawebnetwork 1y ago
Canada has a great website about radon: https://www.canada.ca/radon https://www.canada.ca/radon https://takeactiononradon.ca/ https://takeactiononradon.ca/

TurkishPoptart 1y ago

What's a radon mitigation system like?