Stone houses.

[ARW]

Did you mean a look on Google Street view or a real drive by in a car?

Maybe even slowing down to 20MPH as they pass the house on their way to Starbucks?

[ARW]

Of course a working chimney would have solved that.

"Much of Cornwall is designated as a Radon affected area."

from

How's your chemo going? You mentioned it the other day and said it left you a bit knackered. But other than that?

[whisky-dave]

You shouldn't throw glass in stone houses or something like that. :-)

[Vir Campestris]

That proves there is a market for them - possibly driven by the NRPB advice that Chris's link discredits.

It does not prove there is a need.

Andy

[tabbypurr]

What is this Chris's link?

[Chris Hogg]

NRPB seems to operate on a precautionary principle, regardless of the actual evidence, witness their approach to radiation exposure in general, still clinging to the LNT theory despite growing evidence that a threshold exists.

IIRC positive under-floor ventilation was obligatory for new-builds down here some thirty years ago, i.e. a fan system. A requirement to use an impermeable membrane to exclude radon may have replaced that obligation. A heavy duty polythene membrane, the same as used for damp-proofing, would be effective, cheaper and simpler to install. The extra mention of radon in the membrane description just broadens their potential customer base to include the paranoid. I expect Harry's got several layers put down!

[Chris Hogg]

As posted up-thread

[The Natural Philosopher]

I think it is part of building regs.

[RJH]

A more recent article written by health professionals ('yours' is written by an economic geographer):

"Radon is the second leading cause of lung cancer among smokers and the leading cause among non-smokers . . . Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death in the United States (US), and smoking is the strongest risk factor for the disease [1]. The second greatest risk factor is exposure to radon, which causes approximately 21,000 cases of lung cancer per year [2?8]. High levels of radon exposure in homes have been associated with lung cancer risk, regardless of the patient?s smoking status, according to analyses of pooled data from multiple studies in China, Europe, and North America" (p.962)

Acree, P., Puckett, M., & Neri, A. (2017). Evaluating Progress in Radon Control Activities for Lung Cancer Prevention in National Comprehensive Cancer Control Program Plans, 2011?2015. Journal of Community Health,

42(5), 962?967.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Of course the actual radiation may in the end not be the problem

Radon has a relatively short half life and rapidly decays via polonium/bismuth/thallium to lead.

All of these are heavy metals that in people with restricted cough ability (smokers) is likely to lead to long term retention of inhaled gases and decay products and tissue damage.

[Clive Arthur]

<snipped>

What's the local situation regarding tradesmen? You get (obviously) more house for your money if it needs work, but I don't have the time or most of the skills. Here, in Berks, getting work done can be a bit of a struggle and expensive.

Cheers

[Chris Hogg]

Their conclusion is broadly in agreement with the one here

by Darby et al.

However, Wade Allison* disagrees with Darby's interpretation of their results.

"A conclusion for public health is that smoking alone is responsible for a risk of 10% of dying of lung cancer before age

1. The added stress on the various elements of the immune system of living in a high radon environment raise this figure to about 16%. However, the effect of radon for non-smokers is small ? the risk of 0.1% or so should not be considered a serious concern, in the sense discussed on page 7. But, in any case, in a study of some 10,000 individuals statistical errors around 1% are to be expected, and consequently it is open to doubt whether there is any established risk due to radon for non-smokers."

page 126 (or 134 of the pdf page counter).

As I said up-thread, it's not a matter of great concern here, and from a practical viewpoint, rates of lung cancer incidence in Cornwall are lower than the national average. Of course, that may just mean that without radon, lung cancer incidence would be _much_ lower than the national average (BICBA to go into it in that detail).

You pays your money and you takes your choice.

Apart from radon, there's a lot of granite around, much used for building older houses. A major constituent of granite is orthoclase feldspar, and a major constituent of orthoclase is potassium...

*Prof Allison is a Fellow of Keble College and a Professor Emeritus at the University of Oxford. His book 'Fundamental Physics for Probing and Imaging' is an advanced textbook for his course at Oxford on medical physics, including radiation and its use in clinical medicine and the wider environment.

[DJC]

On 25/04/2019 21:23, Vir Campestris wrote:

The surveyor of my house (in South Somerset) three years ago was obliged to cut-n-paste the following in the survey:

4.5 The following statement was prepared by the RICS and must be included in survey reports for properties in areas notified as possibly affected by radon; this includes Dorset, Devon and Somerset. The paragraph may not apply to the specific location: ?The National Radiological Protection Board of Chilton, Didcot, Oxfordshire OX11 0RO (NRPB) has identified the area in which the property is situated as one in which, in more that 1% of the dwellings, the levels of radon gas entering the property are such that remedial action is recommended. Radon is a naturally occurring, colourless gas that is radioactive and is present in varying quantities in all rocks and soils. A Government survey has shown that the majority of houses in the UK do not have significant radon levels. For most people the risk from radon is insignificant compared to the other risks of everyday life, such as fatal accidents in the home. It is not possible during an inspection or survey to determine whether radon gas is present in any given building as the gas is colourless and odourless. Tests can be carried out to assess the level of radon in a building. At a small charge, test instruments and results are available by post from the NRPB and other approved laboratories. The minimum testing period is three months. The NRPB strongly advises against using shorter-term testing instruments as they can give misleading results. If tests have not been carried out, they are recommended. It has been the experience of the NRPB that it is not expensive, in proportion to the value of the property to take the recommended remedial measures.? 4.6 The National Radiological Protection Board has now been renamed as the Health Protection Agency

[Vir Campestris]

Thank you. That does indeed suggest there is a risk. Summary suggests a couple of thousand cases annually in the USA.

If I lived in a granite area I think I'd follow more of the links!

Andy

[Tim Streater]

What does "strongest risk factor" and "lung cancer risk" mean in terms of extra cases of it happening? We're all at risk of lots of things, the real question is how big is the risk.

[RJH]

In the US, that research suggests exposure to certain levels of radon is the cause of 21000 cases of lung cancer each year. See what I did there :-)

But there are compound factors - smoking seems to be the largest. When I looked in to it a while back*, high radon and smoking looked pretty much a flip of a coin whether you'd get lung cancer. But I'm far from an expert - you'd need to know a lot about cancer, buildings, statistics

*and* demography (etc.) to get even close to understanding the real risk. Which I don't.

• I lived in Bakewell for a while - high radon, apparently. I bought a crude/cheap (but common there) radon meter, imported from the States, which does seem to reflect the indications on radon maps in the 3 properties I've tried it in.

[Chris Hogg]

I'm not too familiar with the general situation. I had a local builder modernise my late mother's bungalow eighteen months ago. I'd used him before and was happy with his work. He has a small team who work directly for him, mason, painter, chippy etc. but subcontracts the plumbing and electrics, which is probably the norm. He had six properties on the go at any one time. A bit pricey, but generally OK, if not perfect (one of the younger electricians, an apprentice I suspect, managed to reverse the L and N connections of a radiant heater for the bathroom and then insisted the unit was faulty as it tripped the MCB. I even asked him if he'd wired it correctly and he swore he had. But when I checked, he hadn't. Simply rectified and all OK now). But I guess minor niggles happen with the best of builders.

I do know that last winter our LPG boiler in my previous property expired after 18 years during that very cold spell, and I had the devil's job getting a gas installer to replace it at a sensible price. They either gave me a ridiculous quote or didn't bother to quote at all.

[The Natural Philosopher]

No. It suggests that there is a perception of risk.

[The Natural Philosopher]

IIRC if you are a smoker there is anout a 10% -15% increased risk of lung cancer.

If you dont smoke there is no increased risk.

In general you need something in excess of a single >200msV dose exposure to increase risks of anything.

Radiation therapy for cancer exposes part of the body to doses in excess of 20Sv which if applied to the whole body would be lethal.

In practice at that level there is a 10-15% increase in chances for an unrelated cancer to develop in a decade or two.

In parts of the world 200mSv per year is natural background level.

There is no perceptible increased rate of cancer.

[Vir Campestris]

Did you follow all the links?

We've got one saying the increased risk is only to smokers. Another suggesting that in the USA there are a couple of thousand radon linked excess deaths each year - and they seem to have controlled for smoking.

Andy