I dislike going OT on this board, as differences in perspective may
escalate into argument. I have followed the Radon question for two decades or
so, and find myself undisturbed by it. A common sense question would be, "If it
is as dangerous as it is perceived to be, and given the fact that houses in
areas of high Radon concentration have existed for generations, why has there
not been massive local incidence of lung cancer?" And by "massive", I mean
MASSIVE.
And yet, nope. Just plain nope. For me, this falls under the heading of,
"Who are you going to believe? The 'experts', or your eyes?" But, that's just
me.
I realize that a common put-on-the-blinders response is, "Why take
chances?", but that perspective can also be applied to getting out of bed in
the morning. Where I take issue, is with the facts in evidence vs. the hysteria
gen'd up by 'experts' and promulgated by naive bureaucrats. The consequence is
needless millions of dollars expended in mandated 'abatement' efforts,
inconvenience (even psychological burdens) and expense to home owners/buyers.
But, that's just me. I have what I am told is a mulish tendency to rely on
facts and figures rather than emotion.
One thing everyone agrees upon (so far as I know) is that limited exposure
to Radon actually reduces the risk of lung cancer:
http://www.wpi.edu/news/20078/radonstudy.html
Here is a succinct paper, 'Radon Risk and Cancer', on the question, take it
or leave it as you choose:
http://www.forensic-applications.com/radon/reviews.html
As a potentially disruptive parting shot, and I'll say no more on either
topic, it's too bad that given the depredations of malaria, and now the Zika
virus, that we don't have a safe, proven means of mosquito eradication, like,
oh, DDT.
John W.
