Not meaning to be disruptive. I enjoyed my project ;)
On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 1:01 PM, John Whitton <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. > >
