Radon: Explaining Cumulative Exposure Risk

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter chalk72
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Radon
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the cumulative exposure risk of radon radiation, specifically focusing on the calculations and implications of different exposure levels in relation to health effects. Participants explore theoretical derivations, empirical data, and the broader context of radiation exposure, including the concept of radiation hormesis.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents a calculation suggesting that reaching a cumulative exposure of 100 milliSieverts from radon requires over 6,000 years under specific conditions, which contrasts sharply with data from the NCRP indicating a much shorter time frame of 29 years for the same exposure level.
  • Another participant agrees with the NCRP's estimate of 100 milliSieverts in 29 years, noting that natural background radiation is comparable to radon levels in certain homes.
  • There is a claim that the Linear No-Threshold (LNT) theory is incorrect for doses below 10 milliSieverts per day, suggesting that individuals exposed to radon may experience a health benefit due to radiation hormesis.
  • A historical perspective is introduced, referencing the long-standing practice of visiting radon-rich spas for health benefits, which some argue contradicts the LNT theory.
  • Another participant highlights the neglect of literature supporting radiation hormesis and questions the financial implications of radon mitigation efforts, citing examples of populations living in higher radiation areas without increased cancer rates.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the implications of radon exposure and the validity of the LNT theory. There is no consensus on the health effects of radon or the accuracy of the calculations presented, indicating ongoing debate and uncertainty.

Contextual Notes

The discussion includes various assumptions about exposure levels, health effects, and the validity of different theoretical models. Participants reference empirical data and personal calculations that may depend on specific conditions and definitions.

chalk72
Messages
1
Reaction score
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
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.
 
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:
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.