The amount of bad science in the article is incredible. The idea that "small amounts of radiation do little/no measurable harm" is neither new nor unknown. Thi

The amount of bad science in the article is incredible. The idea that "small amounts of radiation do little/no measurable harm" is neither new nor unknown. This does not mean that exposure to low levels of radiation is beneficial. That argument is on a par with homeopathy. Yes, there's a long-running argument that a nuclear power industry causes less damage to health than the traditional fossil-fuel alternatives. Again, nothing new. But on to the radon tunnels: "I spent my 30 radon-breathing minutes had room for 20 or so people who had signed on for its protective value or its alleged benefit". "The doctor in charge on the day of my visit…told me of clinical trials" - so far, so good. "of surveys testifying to the popularity of the treatment" - uh oh. "of patients who are able to cut down on or even abandon the drug therapies they would otherwise have been using" - hmm. "How much of this evidence would rate as gold standard in quality, I have no idea" - then perhaps this is the time to investigate further, before reporting. Clinical, peer-reviewed studies would go a long way to supporting the article. But even though clinical studies are mentioned in the article, there's no link to the supporting study. Sure, homeopathy and all sorts of dodgy remedies have their advocates. But until this is backed up by a published peer-reviewed clinical study, this article belongs firmly in the camp of bad science.