From Name
John

Many posts seem to point out that the term
weatherization in this thread is ambiguous.
If we talk
sealing very leaky windows in the basement, we would presume levels could
increase. If we talk sealing and insulating the upper ceiling / attic floor
barrier we would presume levels could decrease.
The details of how each house weatherization technique
affects each houses’ unique set of as-built characteristics will determine
whether post weatherization radon levels might increase, decrease or remain the
same. So simply making pre & post
weatherization tests cannot provide any reliable conclusions.
My 2cents
John Mallon
If you believe that DOE lacks money
for radiation protection check out this link about the Hanford
cleanup.
http://www.tri-cityherald.com/2012/02/09/1819305/new-cost-for-hanford-cleanup-projected.html
 
 
 
From: Terry Howell
Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2012 4:33 PM
To: RADONPROFESSIONALS@LIST.UIOWA.EDU
Subject: Re: [RNPROF] Conflicting Energy Office
Policies
 
Unfortunately this
scientifically “higher plain” is no different than what has been touted by
researchers since I first became involved in radon back in ’83.  Soil gas
concentration, geology, type of structure, county, have all had their papers and
formulas to calculate probability.  DOE research led to paper(s) that said
there was no need to test all ground contact apartments for radon and that at
most 1 test per building was adequate.  This still haunts us today because
it is what was adopted by HUD for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, in spite of the
fact that EPA developed a multi-family protocol just for
them.
 
As much as USGS tried and all
the ‘science” and statistically valid surveys they used, the EPA Don’t Test for
Radon Here map is a perfect example.
 
It just does not
work!
Every home is
different!
The radon levels in every home
is different!
The radon levels in every home
will react differently to weatherization no matter the degree of
thoroughness!
The only way to know is to test
before and after!
 
I am sorry that some took
offense to my statement about the prior research.  It was in no way
intended as a statement about the individuals that actually did the work but
merely what the funding agency needed to happen.  It’s the Golden
Rule.  He who has the Gold, Makes the Rule.  And is the funding source
that gets to put the “proper” spin on the outcome of the research.  We see
it every day on TV by drug companies and political pundits.  In this case
the spin was that even leaky houses have elevated radon levels so weatherization
is not to blame for anything.
 
Terry
E. Howell, President
Radalink,
Inc.
5599
Peachtree Rd.
Atlanta,
GA  30341-2309
THowell@Radalink.com
800-295-4655
 
From: International Web
Resource for Radon Professionals [mailto:RADONPROFESSIONALS@LIST.UIOWA.EDU]
On Behalf Of Kevin StewartSent: Thursday, August 23, 2012 3:17
PMTo: RADONPROFESSIONALS@LIST.UIOWA.EDUSubject: Re:
[RNPROF] Conflicting Energy Office Policies
 
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
This email message and any attachments accompanying it may contain confidential
and privilegedinformation belonging to Radalink, Inc. This information is
intended only for the use of the individualor entity for which it is
addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby
notifiedthat any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking any action on
the contents of this information isstrictly prohibited. If you have received
this email in error, please notify us at 800-295-4655 immediately.
Radon Professionals - Subscription changes and archives - http://list.uiowa.edu/scripts/wa.exe?SUBED1=RADONPROFESSIONALS&A=1
Radon Professionals - Subscription changes and archives - http://list.uiowa.edu/scripts/wa.exe?SUBED1=RADONPROFESSIONALS&A=1