I thought you were saying you could start the test at hour 8 because the next 4 are discarding anyway.
But look at this. More confusing. You can discard the first 12 hours if closed conditions were not pre-set. Therefore, 4 hours of the 12 is acclimation time. So, maybe you can start at 8 vs 12 if you discard the 1st 4 hours. Omg, this is ridiculous, lol.
I use Radalink, which is basically automated, and that is how they do it. If I get to a house and closed house conditions were not met I punch that in. Then on the radon test results it will show the test started after 8 hours, then the next 4 hours are discarded. This is with the monitor running for at least 60 hours, to meet the minimum 48 hours.
As I read Jeff’s question, he was asking if the four hour machine acclimation could coincide with the 12 hour closed building period. I think it can if it is hour 8 through 12. If you are discarding the first four hours, you are performing a 44 hour test beginning at hour 12.
If you are not discarding the first four hours and instead using a correction factor, then you cannot start that test at hour 8. You would need to wait until hour 12.
Gotcha…I am not so sure if I agree with starting at 8, but only because it is not specifically addressed. But, I cannot disagree with your common sense approach.
I keep it simple. If I arrive at the home and find open building conditions, I set a 12 hour delay and run a full 48 hour test starting at the end of hour 12. If I arrive and find appropriate closed building conditions, I set a four hour delay and run a full 48 hour test beginning at the end of hour 4. Less confusion that way in my opinion.
a different point here is, and i see this all the time throughout 45 yrs, the cupcake INT drainage system often isn’t necessary
don’t know everywhere in basement this homeowner was getting water on the floor but appears
at least 2 areas, 2 corners at 2:05 mark and around 3:23 mark
those 2 areas where the dumb dumb int system was installed, still leak imho, EXT waterproofing is what was, still is needed of the 2 corners
over and over we see homeowners get lied to, they are told they need a FULL int system when truth is they only leak in 1 or 2 areas due to ext-cracks, cracked parging in B wall and they only needed ‘some’ ext-waterproofing.
didn’t need to tear out the perimeter of floor all the way around which can allow easier access for radon
so these homeowners wind up spending many thousands for a system that did not ‘waterproof’ the actual problems n was not necessary and on top of the many thousands spent on the int system, some now need tp spend another $1,000 - 3,000 for radon mitigation system because the jerk offs bs’d the homeowners and left gaps around the perimeter
Unintended or unforeseen consequences resulting from an initial bad decision. Good points Mark.
(sorry for hijacking your thread my man)
this home inspector also did a good job and caught this, you could skip to 3:37 mark -->> 4:22
some would tell homeowners to spray foam EVERYTHING in basement, the walls all the way UP and some like slapping dimpled membranes etc against the basement walls, bad idea imo, shtt slap some paint on the walls and live with that, it’s a basement not Buckingham Palace
all good man, understand your guys points per radon tests
at least Mike did the right thing here, ext-waterproofing because i’ve seen other videos where he tells peeps to slap drylok paint on inside
interior drainage system don’t repair-waterproof anything like this either
pretty often when THIS is the problem on the outside of block, brick B walls… you won’t see ‘THIS’ on the inside of the B wall, no. You might not see any crack on wall inside or might just see a hairline crack or 2 on the inside. Looking at errr inspecting the inside of a block, brick B wall does not tell you the condition of the outside of wall, just saying.
so when i get calls per homeowners leaky basements and i hear them or others say, ‘We do not see any crack in our block wall on the inside Markie-poo’, that doesn’t mean shtt to me, NOT a dang thing
@bcawhern1 great discussion! To answer your question, I didn’t do much with the data other than make the video. Ha. I did talk with the clients at that inspection about difficulties with installing a mitigation system at that house. But as for the data collected with the monitors… It’s just simply an observation of a couple of hours. No more, no less.
@ruecker my corentium pro monitors take about 1-2 hours to adjust, just as you mentioned. The monitor I used in the video referenced above are eco trackers. They are taking readings every 5 minutes. Based on my experience using these for several months, I have found they adjust to the new environment much quicker. Usually within 15-20 minutes they have adjusted and are taking (what seems to be) accurate measurements.
@bhull1 mentioned a different house where i found a hot spot for radon entry. That was a 1920s build and I had 4 different monitors set up throughout the house for about 3 hours. They were all averaging around 7 pCi/l. The buyers were interested in mitigation, so I went down to try to figure out a practical way to get air moving below an old cellar slab (pro tip: it’s not easy to do that).
I repositioned one monitor directly over a floor drain that I had suspicions about. I was worried that the cast iron was broken below the slab, so not only could it be a radon entry point, but it would also make mitigation difficult because they had a washing machine and sink routed through that drain.
After 15 minutes over that floor drain, that monitor read 77 pCi/l. So that seemed to be the primary entry point causing the elevated radon throughout the house. One sec and I’ll post pics.
First, thank you for responding. Why were the buyers interested in mitigation initially?
Was it because of the 4 monitors set up for 3 hours?
I set my eco trackers out on almost all inspections. Even when I’m doing a formal 48 hour test following short term test protocol… I will still set out the trackers while I’m there. I’m genuinely interested in where and how radon enters into homes. I love analyzing the data and comparing test methods and locations. It’s something that I enjoy.
On the 1920s house, I set the monitors on the main floor and in the basement (2 per level). I set them as I normally do, at the start of the inspection. After about an hour we started noticing the elevated readings and the client began asking how it could be mitigated. They were buying the house “as is” and did not have any ability to negotiate. They were also planning to renovate a lot of things, so they wanted ideas on how to address the issue.
I initially started telling them how it would be very difficult to mitigate the slab because I could almost guarantee that there was no gravel below it to facilitate air movement. As we were talking, that’s when I remembered the drain and started thinking about what could be happening. That’s when I ended up relocating the monitor to the top of the drain, mainly to test my theory.
Out of that conversation, we came up with an idea to relocate the washing machine and sink drains (which were discharging into the floor drain further upstream). Once they did that, they could fill the drain with concrete (seal it off) and then retest. Its very likely that’s all they will need to do to lower indoor radon levels.
So, they are making these decisions based on a couple of machines placed around for a few hours? And a hot spot you found by placing a machine directly on a drain grate? I know you understand this is completely contrary to any recognized radon testing protocols.
I think there is a difference in looking for clues to help you to determine how to mitigate vs providing legitimate radon testing to help the client understand exactly what their radon levels are and the risk factors involved in order to make an informed decision. I’ll leave it there on a public forum.
That’s cool. I tell all of my clients that the Eco trackers are NOT a formal radon test following short or long term protocols. It’s merely a quick reading to see what’s currently going on (5 minute data logging).
If it’s a real estate transaction, they can decide if they want a 48 hour test with a calibrated monitor following AARST standards.
I’m personally not a fan of 48 hour testing being presented as “formal testing”. I think it’s too short of a time period to gain a true understanding of radon exposure in a home. I advise my clients to test for 90 days or longer if it’s possible. Unfortunately, real estate transactions won’t allow that amount of time. So we are stuck with the 48 hour duration and 4 pCi/l being a hinge point.
My point being, I use eco trackers strategically because I enjoy understanding what’s happening. I don’t present the information as a formal test and I don’t charge for any information gained with the trackers.
I’ve used them for almost a year and many times I’ve tested simultaneously with calibrated monitors (corentium pro). The findings with the trackers has always aligned with the results from the longer duration test monitors.
Why would they if you offer it for free in 3 hours?
Agreed! …
If they want to use test results for negotiation power then they need a formal test with a calibrated monitor.
If they aren’t negotiating or if it’s not a real estate transaction, they can take the information and decide what to do with it.
Ignore it.
Set a longer test.
Look at mitigation strategies.
I understand your point and it’s something I’ve spent a lot of time thinking on and formulating how I interpret and deliver the information.
I think it’s an interesting angle to go with the “few hour” readings as a possible indicator of radon levels (not a test, but a sample, if you will). I may just be a bit careful about using those readings to sell mitigation systems though. I’m not sure it would ever come back to bite you, because no one would be able to prove that radon WAS NOT high before mitigation. But, you never know, lol.
Don’t deliver it. Just don’t do it. The consumer has no idea what you are doing. They can’t make an informed decision just because you “disclaimed” it was not a formal test. That’s my two cents.
And, it screams conflict of interest.
