Radon: Explaining Cumulative Exposure Risk

  • Thread starter chalk72
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Radon
In summary, when discussing radon, there are typically two reactions: panic from the general public and disgust from scientists. However, there may be a third state of enlightening explanation. The speaker is looking for a derivation of the number of years needed for a cumulative exposure to reach a certain level in the presence of alpha radiation from radon. Their calculations disagree with data from the NCRP, which suggests a shorter time frame for reaching the same level of exposure. The speaker also brings up the idea of radiation hormesis and the potential benefits of exposure to radon at low levels. They mention the example of a German spa known for its high radon levels and the lack of increase in cancer rates among its visitors. Finally, they mention
  • #1
chalk72
1
0
I have noticed that whenever the topic of radon comes up there are two probable reactions:
1. IQ quenching panic. Generally exhibited by members of the public at large.
2. Discussion quenching disgust. Most commonly displayed by devotees of the hard sciences. (Sometimes accompanied by hand-waving)

I would like to posit the existence of a third state: enlightening explanation. Specifically, I am in search of a derivation of the number of years required for a cumulative exposure of x milliSieverts of radiation in the presence of y picoCuries/liter of alpha radiation from radon. My own calculations have led me to conclude that for x = 100 it would take over 6,000 years for lungs of 2kg mass and 5 liter volume to reach this level given a Q of 20 and N of 0.12 (wikipedia) in the presence of 2 pCI/liter assumedly generated purely by alpha particles with an energy of 6.4MeV (highest decay energy for Radon products I could find). Alarmingly, or perhaps annoyingly, this disagrees hugely with data from the NCRP indicating an annual effective dose in the neighborhood of 1.7mSv for 1 pCi/liter, which would get you to 100mSV in only 29 years for a 2pCi/liter situation. If anyone (preferably not within groups 1 or 2 above) can shed some light on this disagreement, I would be most appreciative.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
The estimate of 100mSV in 29 years sounds in the right ballpark to me. Natural background is on the order of 2 to 7 mSv/year, and I believe radon is of the same order of magnitude in houses that have a lot of radon.

Note that a wide variety of observations shows that LNT is totally wrong when applied to animal life at doses of less than about 10 mSv per *day*. People with radon in their basements are probably harvesting a slight health benefit, due to radiation hormesis. The benefit would be significant at the population level, but not worth worrying about at the individual level.
 
  • #3
For centuries people have gone to spas to "take the waters" for their health & people are quite clear that it works whatever worries the authorities want to stir up. Such water comes from springs deep under the Earth & thus has a high concentration of radon & indeed uranium. This could not be so if the LNT theory were correct & highly unlikely to be true if there weren't a significant positive hormetic effect.

This is about "the most radioactive place on Earth" - a German spa http://www.radscihealth.org/RSH/docs/Radon/ABCNEWScom_RadIsKing.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #4
Wow I could not agree more.

Thomas D Luckey's book on Radiation Hormesis and a new publication by Charles Sanders, Radiation Hormesis and the Linear-No-Threshold Assumption are ignored by those who urge and scare people into spending loads of money to reduce the radiation in their basement. Not to mention the fact that we spend millions maybe billions to bury radiation that is emitting close to 300 times less what people in a couple of villages in Iran and China live in without an increase but a slight decrease in cancer rates.
 

What is radon and where does it come from?

Radon is a radioactive gas that occurs naturally from the decay of uranium in soil, rock, and water. It can enter buildings through cracks in the foundation and other openings.

What are the health risks associated with radon exposure?

Exposure to high levels of radon can increase the risk of developing lung cancer, especially in smokers. It is the second leading cause of lung cancer in the United States.

How does radon exposure accumulate over time?

Radon exposure accumulates over time as the gas seeps into buildings and becomes trapped. The longer a person is exposed to radon, the higher their cumulative exposure level will be.

How can I test for radon in my home?

You can purchase a radon testing kit or hire a professional to conduct a radon test in your home. It is recommended to test for radon every two years, as levels can fluctuate over time.

What can I do to reduce my risk of radon exposure?

If high levels of radon are detected in your home, there are measures you can take to reduce your exposure. This can include sealing cracks in the foundation, installing a radon mitigation system, and increasing ventilation in your home.

Back
Top