I know that it causes cancer.
For the purpose of this thread I will leave it at that.
As time goes on, we have more and more long-term data (just like we do with certain makes of roofing shingles), and so the estimated loss of life expectancy from radon becomes more and more trustworthy.
The only question left is whether or not the risk is linear no-threshold (the risk is proportional to exposure) which is mostly an assumption at low levels.
Thomas Witt and Frank Carrio are members of a very exclusive club… which I hope to one day qualify to join.
Copied in part from: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ewh-semt/radiation/radon/faq_fq-eng.php
On average, 16% of lung cancer deaths are attributable to radon exposure in Canada. In 2006, an estimated 1,900 lung cancer deaths in Canada were due to radon exposure. Radon is the 2nd leading cause of lung cancer, after smoking.
I’ve already used the new chart today. It works. Most people have difficulty getting their heads around statistics, but the chart which places the risk from radon exposure in between other known risks (some of them funny) helps consumers understand it easier.
So are uranium miners a large percentage of the 21,000 deaths caused by radon exposure?
No. But uranium miners (in the past) exposed to high radon nearly all contracted lung cancer quickly. That is why we know for certain that radon causes lung cancer. We have actual dead bodies. That’s what kind of alerted everyone. Since then there have been studies of lung cancer rates in people who have lived in homes known to have high radon levels (just like there are studies of lung cancer rates in people who have smoked a lot).
The 21,000 number is derived (not from counting actual dead bodies) by assuming the risk of radon exposure is linear. In other words, the more the worse, the less the better. To me, I would think that the risk of radon has to be linear (directly proportional to exposure) as the chance of a disintegration doing damage to a cell that leads to cancer would have to be directly proportional to the number of times it has a chance of doing cell damage (exposure). Mathematically, if the odds of getting tails when you flip a coin 100,000 times is 50,000… then the odds of getting tails when you flip it 10,000 times has to be 5,000… and the odds of getting tails when you flip it 100 times has to be 50.
In other words, in my mind, I am unable to come up with any scenario where the risk from radon could be anything but perfectly linear.
Ok…weed overdose?
Impossible. I actually know people who have tried. You can’t die from an overdose of weed. It’s not alcohol. http://www.leafscience.com/2014/08/26/can-you-overdose-on-marijuana/
Perfect linearity is probably rare when it comes to cancer and its causes.
Anecdotally we all know the stories of the person who smoked and drank all the way to their death at 93.
And the reverse as well. Illness is rarely cut and dried as to cause.
Doctors acknowledge the role of chance, luck whatever you want to call it in contracting an illness. Genetics, environment, lifestyle all play a role.
A uranium miner, sure, that’s linear.
Outside of that?
In other words, in my mind, I am unable to come up with any scenario where the risk from radon could be anything but perfectly linear.
From Cause of Deaths in the U.S. - Page 2 - InterNACHI Inspection Forum http://www.nachi.org/forum/f13/cause-deaths-u-s-103078/index2.html#post1359175#ixzz3fpX3bZKX
Alcohol use (unlike radon exposure) is definitely not a no-threshold, linear risk.
Alcohol also depends heavily on concentration. 50 hard drinks spread out over a month isn’t as risky as 50 hard drinks in one night (very different risks). It’s not like radon where 4pCi/L exposure for 10 years is the exact risk equivalent of 40pCi/L exposure for 1 year (exact same risk).
Add solid aluminum branch wiring to your chart.
Frank caught a Tarasenko typo too??
Do tell.
It would be interesting to see a chart with some other safety defects that we inspect included someday. Like, stair falls, electrocution, carbon monoxide, etc.
Wayne suggests:
72 deaths by terrorist attacks?
What about the attacks on the Marine Corps barracks, our embassies, the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and the Boston marathon?
Included. I took all the terrorist attacks on Americans since 1970, added them up, and divided by 45 years to come up with 72.6 deaths/year.
There is an argument that claims that attacks on the Marine Corps and the Pentagon are not terrorist attacks since those are legitimate military targets, but I included them as terrorist attacks.
Anyway, the odds of an American being killed by a terrorist is infinitesimal (I hope we’re not wasting too much tax money fighting terrorism ;-)) . More Americans are killed by bees than terrorists.
When you “added them up” what was the total?
3,267
While the “math might be correct” I would like to see “the list”.