From Name
Kevin Stewart

Sometimes I believe that the language being used in the current thread to discuss this issue is not always as precise as it perhaps should be to avoid confusion
about the conclusions of various studies.  For example, here are various questions that could be asked about this issue:
 
1)     
In a particular existing defined population of housing stock, does “weatherization” (given the different understandings of what the term means,
that would have to be clarified) of that stock have a statistically significant effect on the mean radon level (again, as defined by some uniform protocol) of that population of houses?
 
2)     
Are there subsets of housing (by characteristic) in which weatherization (by particular technique) has a statistically significant effect on the
mean radon level of those sub-populations of houses?
 
3)     
What is the probability that post-weatherization radon results in a specific house will be higher (by X pCi/L or by some significant ratio) than
pre-weatherization radon results, over the entire population of housing from which a study sample of houses is drawn, and also for certain sub-populations by housing characteristic or by weatherization technique?  For example, there might be a significant
chance that the radon level in a specific post-weatherized house may go up even if there is no significant effect on the mean level across all houses.
 
These are all quite different questions.  I am aware of the Angell/Wilson review presented at the 2011 International Radon Symposium whose recirculation may
be of benefit to this discussion.  I’m sure people can think of even more details that need to be addressed.
 
Kevin M. Stewart
Director of Environmental Health
American Lung Association of the Mid-Atlantic
 
Radon Professionals - Subscription changes and archives - http://list.uiowa.edu/scripts/wa.exe?SUBED1=RADONPROFESSIONALS&A=1