Colorado man dies from Radon.

[Raymond N. Newman]

Just to clarify what I wanted to point out, with the last line to relate the numbers to each other

Bequerel (Bq) and Bq/m3
Bequerel is the international standard unit for radioactivity; that is the rate that radioactive materials decay.One Bq is one decay per second. The US unit of radioactivity is the Curie(Ci). One Ci is 3.7x 10E10 decays per second. Bq/m3 is the international unit for volumetric activity concentration. The relationship between activity concentrations is that 1 pCi/L = 37 Bq/m3
picoCurie and pCi/L
The US unit of radioactivity is the Curie(Ci). One Ci is 3.7x 10E10 decays per second. One picoCurie is 3.7x 10E-2decays per second or 3.7x 10E-2Bq. pCi/L is the US unit for volumetric activity concentration. The relationship between activity concentrations is that 1 pCi/L = 37 Bq/m3

Raymond

edited because of them darn exponents

[Raymond N. Newman]

Or if you prefer Working Level (WL)
Ref: R.J.Wilson, Colorado State University

What physicists are familiar with: Curie and Bequerel
– Curie (Ci): Measure of the rate of radioactive decay corresponding to an amount of material that produces 3.70 E10 disintegrations per second.
– Bequerel (Bq): SI unit of activity, 1 Bq = 1 disintegration per second.
1 pCi of material has an activity of 0.037 Bq (2.22 disintegrations per minute).

What mine operators use: Working Level

– 1 Working Level (WL) represents any combination of short-lived radon decay products in one liter of air that will result in the ultimate emission of 1.3 x 105 MeV of potential alpha energy. – Conversion of working level (WL) to radon activity (pCi/L, Bq/m3) is approximate and depends on the equilibrium ratio.

For “still” air: 1 WL = 100 pCi/L = 3700 Bq/m3

– Air flow => non-equilibrium.
Commonly used is 50 percent equilibrium ratio typical of the home environment:

1 WL = 200 pCi/L = 7400 Bq/m
- Complicates interpretation of mine measurements

[Nick Gromicko]

Caoimhin:

I disagree.

Radon is one of the few causes of cancer that actually has dead bodies (uranium miners) laying around to prove how dangerous it is.

And although you are technically correct in that no one can tell for sure what caused the cancer (lung cancer caused by cigarettes is microscopically identical to lung cancer caused by radon) I don't think it far fetched for one to say that a very high radon level or "3 packs a day" or whatever... caused one's cancer.

Technically one who gets hit by a bus probably dies from blood loss or internal bleeding or whatever... but I'd say he died from "getting hit by a bus."

[Raymond N. Newman]

Here is the German study press release in english:

http://www.gsf.de/Aktuelles/Presse/Radon_2004_en.pdf

I am still waiting on a response to the european study.

[Caoimhín P. Connell]

Hello Gents!

Some excellent comments and an interesting thread, to be sure. Thank you for permitting me to participate.

Mr. Newman:

You explanation of a Bequerel was excellent and mostly correct; however, it was not addressing my point. My point was that 1 pCi/L of radon as reported using the EPA protocols does not equal 37 Bq/m3 because 1 pCi/L of radon as reported using the EPA protocols, does not equal 1 pCi/L in air. The pCi/L of radon using the EPA protocol is a made-up number that does not have a basis in objective fact, and is not based on physical realities. It is a made-up number based on a specific protocol.

The reason being is that, depending on the particular method employed, it is possible to have 100 pCi/L of radon (as reported pursuant to EPA protocols) in room whose air contains less than 1 pCi/L of actual disintegration. That is because, as I mentioned in my earlier post, the equilibration ratio of 0.5 is an arbitrary selection by the EPA that probably does not exist in most houses.

You even point to this yourself in your second post wherein you reproduce the comment:

Commonly used is 50 percent equilibrium ratio typical of the home environment:

It certainly is commonly used, but, that’s because most people using it are using the EPA protocol, since they are not actually measuring what the REAL ER is.

Finally, thank you for the PDF file. However, the PDF is NOT a study it is merely a press release announcing the study. Press releases are notoriously inaccurate, and for that reason are virtually never referenced by the legitimate scientific community. If you would be so kind as to obtain a copy of the actual study (these study reports can often be 30-70 pages in length) I would be happy to review it.

Hello Mr. Gromicko:

You say:

“Radon is one of the few causes of cancer that actually has dead bodies (uranium miners) laying around to prove how dangerous it is.”

Your comment is at once untrue and irrelevant to the topic under discussion. If we were discussing the health aspects of uranium miners, that would be one thing. We are, however, discussing the issue of radon gas in homes. I challenge you, here publicly, to provide the name of one person on planet Earth – just one – who, not having been a uranium miner, and having been exposed to radon at concentrations commonly seen in houses has demonstrably died from that exposure. You cannot do it, Mr. Gromicko. If you claim that you can, you will loose all credibility, or you will be the first person in history that can so do – (but you will be up for a Nobel Prize in health physics and epidemiology).

You may be an excellent realtor and home inspector, but, with the greatest of respect, I must say that based on your many comments on this board, you have a seriously lacking in the understanding of radiation toxicology and epidemiology. That is not an insult since you are neither an health physicist, nor an industrial hygienist and are not expected to have a good grasp of these fields. However, whilst I recognize my weaknesses in other fields (for example I NEVER inspect homes, work on cars, attempt to perform dentistry, or build rockets), you seem to be unwilling to recognize that you are deficient in the fields of epidemiology, radiation toxicology and industrial hygiene.

Cheers, all!

I hope you have a wonderful weekend.

Caoimhín P. Connell
Forensic Industrial Hygienist
www.forensic-applications.com


(The opinions expressed here are exclusively my personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect my professional opinion, opinion of my employer, agency, peers, or professional affiliates. The above post is for information only and does not reflect professional advice and is not intended to supercede the professional advice of others.)

AMDG

[rmyers1]

Caoimhín P. Connell
Forensic Industrial Hygienist
www.forensic-applications.com

Your post are always very enlightening

Thank you

[Nick Gromicko]

Caoimhin:

If your thread drift was designed to belittle my total lack of formal education... you've succeeded. You've also succeeded in demonstrating how someone with a formal education can at times... just not get it and that is part of the reason I try not to hire college graduates.

The reason one can use uranium miners to calculate the risk for mere homeowners is that the risk from radiation is considered to be linear, no threshold. In other words, the more the worse (like the poor uranium miners), the less the better (like the nurse who hides behind the wall when you get an X-ray taken). True for most risks.

Anyway, if you read my post #18 above... I already stated that one can never be 100% certain about what caused the cancer (but that doesn't stop the nurse from hiding behind that wall now does it?).

However, your post #20, which reiterates my point that one can't know for certain what caused the cancer, oddly then goes on to state that the uranium miners DID die from radon! You are certain of it to the point that you even excluded them in your silly Nobel Prize contest.

So much for that college education huh? Hee hee. See if you can get your tuition back... you are most deserving of a full refund.

[Raymond N. Newman]

Nick,
Interesting that you are discriminating against college graduates, but sad.

Caoimhin,
you can twist it and turn like you want, even if protocols define to measure contaminations in workloads, physics is not being changed not for the EPA and not for me or you, so the relationchip between pCi/L & 37 Bq/m3 from 1Ci/L = 37 Bq/m3 remains.

[jschulte]

Caoimhín, in my short experience here, Nick has never been concerned about being technically accurate. He is concerned about selling things and creating hype to sell them, like mold and radon test kits.

He is also very good at reading what he wants to and remembering what he wants to. But on the other hand, he is very good at what he does.

[Caoimhín P. Connell]

Mr. Newman:

Your comment:
even if protocols define to measure contaminations in workloads, physics is not being changed not for the EPA and not for me or you, so the relationchip between pCi/L & 37 Bq/m3 from 1Ci/L = 37 Bq/m3 remains

is true, but similarly my comment

My point was that 1 pCi/L of radon as reported using the EPA protocols does not equal 37 Bq/m3 because 1 pCi/L of radon as reported using the EPA protocols, does not equal 1 pCi/L in air. The pCi/L of radon using the EPA protocol is a made-up number that does not have a basis in objective fact, and is not based on physical realities. It is a made-up number based on a specific protocol.

is also true. I hope you can see that, and I hope that you can see that I’m not disagreeing with you, I am augmenting your statement with another truth.


Mr. Gromicko:

Most of your post, but particularly your comment:

The reason one can use uranium miners to calculate the risk for mere homeowners is that the risk from radiation is considered to be linear, no threshold.

Is quite simply untrue, and underscores my observations.


Cheers!
Caoimhín P. Connell
Forensic Industrial Hygienist
www.forensic-applications.com


(The opinions expressed here are exclusively my personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect my professional opinion, opinion of my employer, agency, peers, or professional affiliates. The above post is for information only and does not reflect professional advice and is not intended to supercede the professional advice of others.)

AMDG

[Nick Gromicko]

Caoimhin:


Try to keep up with the currrent thinking on the subject.


Even the man (Craig Venter) who was first to sequence the human genome said on the Charlie Rose show about 10 days ago about how they are starting to take a different view.


His quote:


"Cancer is getting broken down into more and more separate diseases as we're able to subdivide the diagnostics and the genes associated with them, but we're starting to take a different view of viewing cancer as an overall disease, and we're looking at gene space where we think it can be targeted to deal with cancer as a whole. A lot of cancer's been looked at genetically, and while there are genetic predispositions to cancer that we all have it's actually somatic mutations that we get from toxins in the environment, from radiation, etc., that usually lead to cancer. The model is that as we accumulate mutations in more and more genes, we cross a threshold where all of a sudden we have unregulated cell growth."

[jmichalski]

Originally Posted by jschulte

Caoimhín, in my short experience here, Nick has never been concerned about being technically accurate. He is concerned about selling things and creating hype to sell them, like mold and radon test kits.

He is also very good at reading what he wants to and remembering what he wants to. But on the other hand, he is very good at what he does.

How true.

Mr. Connell, thank you for the education and insight. Some will simply believe what they choose to believe, regardless of the complete lack of scientific evidence to support it. For those of us who care about accurate and reliable information on the subject, your posts are excellent and appreciated.

[Nick Gromicko]

How much more scientific evidence does one need? Even the man who sequenced the human genome (who we would expect to be biased against environmental causes) says...

"it's actually somatic mutations that we get from toxins in the environment, from radiation, etc., that usually lead to cancer."


Not my words, don't shoot the messenger.

[jmichalski]

I would expect nothing less from you than to ignore the very specific, scientifically based and factually supported conclusions presented by a professional in the field, in favor of a vague quote that offers no scientific support to your arguement, and likely was given in response to something completely unrelated to radon, specifically.

This is, after all, NACHI - where facts and logic come to die in the face of nick's opinion...

[Caoimhín P. Connell]

Good morning, Mr. Gromicko:

Regarding, your comment:

Caoimhin:

Try to keep up with the currrent thinking on the subject.

Even the man (Craig Venter) who was first to sequence the human genome said on the Charlie Rose show about 10 days ago about how they are starting to take a different view.

Actually, you are a little confused, again. The quote you attribute to Venter is not a reflection of ground-breaking science, but is, in fact, actually rather old hat. If you had been in one of my toxicology and risk lectures at the University of Denver some eleven years ago (maybe twelve), you would have received that same information then. I dunno, ya think Venter may have been one of my students?

But since you have such a low regard for folks who have a college education, why would you believe this Venter guy anyway? - I suspect he is a college grad (maybe not).

In any event, doesn’t the Vice President of NAHCI have a PhD?

I consider the matter closed.

Cheers,
Caoimhín P. Connell
Forensic Industrial Hygienist
www.forensic-applications.com

(The opinions expressed here are exclusively my personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect my professional opinion, opinion of my employer, agency, peers, or professional affiliates. The above post is for information only and does not reflect professional advice and is not intended to supercede the professional advice of others.)

AMDG