pete@hao.UUCP (Pete Reppert) (11/01/85)
This morning I heard a blurb on the radio about excessive radon deposits in southeastern Pennsylvania. Can anyone send more detailed information, like how toxic it is thought to be, who did the research, etc.? Is Reading over the "Reading plate" or whatever the term was? -- Pete Reppert HAO/NCAR PO BOX 3000 Boulder, Colorado 80307
craig@think.ARPA (Craig Stanfill) (11/05/85)
I'm not sure where I read this (I think it either in the Boston Globe or in Time magazine), but here is what I remember about Radon pollution. Radon is a byproduct of the decay of Uranium in granite. It seeps into cracks and then into the atmosphere. If a structure is built on top of the fissure, the radon seeps into the basement. The radon then decays into short-lived non-gaseous radio isotopes, which stick to dust, walls, your lungs, etc. The result is that the basement or even the entire structure may become quite radioactive, and the radioactive contamination of your lungs can cause lung cancer. In the article I read, a worker at a nuclear power plant in Pennsylvania set of the radiation alarms when he came INTO work. They checked out his house, and found radon levels 100 (1000?) times higher than OSHA guidelines for short term exposure for Uranium miners. It was, in fact, the highest concentration of radon ever detected in a house. The carcinogenic potential was roughly equivalent to smoking many (either 3 or 100?) CARTONS of cigarettes per day! On an actuarial basis, 20 years of living in the house would give close to a 100% chance of getting lung cancer. Fortunately, the owner had only lived there for a little over a year. This was, of course, an extreme case. Radon pollution tends to be very localized: only the one house sitting on top of a particular `hot spot' may be affected. If you live in an area where hot spots occur, it is wise to have your house tested. The best course of action is to contact your count (or state) public health office and ask whether radon is a problem in your community, and if so to ask or pay for a test. The problem is moderately rare, but potentially very serious.
goldman@ittvax.ATC.ITT.UUCP (Ken Goldman) (11/06/85)
> send more detailed information, like how toxic it is
An article (I think in the ~Sept Consumer Reports) says 'very toxic',
like smoking 100 packs a day. It was discovered when a new worker who lives
over the Reading thing began work at a nuclear power plant. He set off
the radiation alarms when he entered the building.
Rumor: banks in the area are beginning to require radon tests before granting
a mortgage.sja@cray.UUCP (Sheridan Adans) (11/13/85)
> I'm not sure where I read this (I think it either in the Boston Globe or > in Time magazine), but here is what I remember about Radon pollution. > > Radon is a byproduct of the decay of Uranium in granite. It seeps into > cracks and then into the atmosphere. If a structure is built on top of > the fissure, the radon seeps into the basement. The radon then decays > into short-lived non-gaseous radio isotopes, which stick to dust, walls, > your lungs, etc. The result is that the basement or even the entire > structure may become quite radioactive, and the radioactive > contamination of your lungs can cause lung cancer. In the article I > read, a worker at a nuclear power plant in Pennsylvania set of the > radiation alarms when he came INTO work. They checked out his house, > and found radon levels 100 (1000?) times higher than OSHA guidelines for > short term exposure for Uranium miners. It was, in fact, the highest > concentration of radon ever detected in a house. The carcinogenic > potential was roughly equivalent to smoking many (either 3 or 100?) > CARTONS of cigarettes per day! On an actuarial basis, 20 years of > living in the house would give close to a 100% chance of getting lung > cancer. Fortunately, the owner had only lived there for a little over a > year. > > This was, of course, an extreme case. Radon pollution tends to be very > localized: only the one house sitting on top of a particular `hot spot' > may be affected. If you live in an area where hot spots occur, it is > wise to have your house tested. The best course of action is to contact > your count (or state) public health office and ask whether radon is a > problem in your community, and if so to ask or pay for a test. The > problem is moderately rare, but potentially very serious. *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE *** The following is information concerning Radon gas in the home. The information was taken from an article in Popular Science, dated Nov. 1985. Radon is a naturally occurring radioactive gas produced by the decay of uranium and radium (half-life 3.8 days). It decays to several different radioactive isotopes and finally to lead. The danger is if the solid particles are breathed in and lodge in the lungs, some of the different isotopes emit high energy sub-atomic particle which can cause cell damage and lead to the formation of cancerous cells. The good news is that: (1) Current estimates are that only 1 to 2 percent of the homes in the US have levels above recommended guidelines. (2) There are steps that can be taken to lower the levels found in the household. If you would like more information, I suggest you read the article in Popular Science (Nov. 1985). It gives tips on how to lower the levels in your house, where to get testing equipment, and how to get more info. I recommend it for anyone who interested or concerned about this. S.J. Adams P.S. In the case mentioned previously, the home test at 8 to 22 times the amount the standards permit. Breathing the air was the equivalent of smoking 135 packs of cigareetes a day. Fortunately for the homeowner, a special project was able to reduce the amount in his home to "safe" levels. SJA
sra@oddjob.UUCP (Scott R. Anderson) (11/18/85)
In article <296@cray.UUCP> sja@cray.UUCP (Sheridan Adans) writes: >Radon is a naturally occurring radioactive gas produced by the decay of >uranium and radium (half-life 3.8 days). It decays to several different >radioactive isotopes and finally to lead. The danger is if the solid >particles are breathed in and lodge in the lungs, some of the different >isotopes emit high energy sub-atomic particle which can cause cell damage and lead to the formation of cancerous cells. > >The good news is that: (1) Current estimates are that only 1 to 2 percent of >the homes in the US have levels above recommended guidelines. >(2) There are steps that can be taken to lower the levels found in the >household. A while back I read (in Science News, I believe) that radon is becoming more of a problem as houses become more "air tight" to conserve energy. It used to be that, even though building materials like brick would outgas small quantities of radon, the air circulation in less energy- efficient houses was enough to quickly disperse it. -- Scott Anderson ihnp4!oddjob!kaos!sra