So does this cancer have a big “R” so we know where it came from?
Actually, the cells are marked with a 4.0
Let’s count the ways that study is flawed:
- “The only factor considered in the study was smoking; other environment and industrial factors linked to lung cancer weren’t taken into account.” (so no one really know what anyone was exposed to.)
- “In the recent long-term testing, Health Canada hired a firm that recruited participant homeowners, who were sent radon detectors to be used over a minimum of three months.” (homeowners = no quality control)
3.“As a result, the new estimate of lung cancers attributable to radon exposure is now 16 per cent.”
4.“Health Canada recommends that homes be tested for a minimum of three months, ideally during the winter as radon concentrations are more accurately measured during the cooler months.” (but that would not be representative of actual exposure as there are 9 other months when the house is not buttoned up as tight!)
5."If all homes with dangerous radon levels were “remediated to the outdoor level,” 927 of the anticipated 3,261 radon-induced lung cancers could potentially be prevented per year. " (which is to say, only an estimated 4.5% of all assumed lung cancers can be possibly prevented by remediating for potential radon… maybe, they hope.)
6.“Health Canada says the costs to reduce radon levels in the home depends on its size and design, and the work that is needed, but they typically range from $50 to $3,000” (Let’s hope the $50 is an ionizer and a few ceiling fans to increase “plating out”.)
Radon is one of the only carcinogenics that have dead bodies laying around to prove how dangerous it is.
Radon is one of the only carcinogenics that have bank accounts laying around to prove how profitable it is.