United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
520/1-89-026
October 1989
Air and Radiation (ANR-464)
Reporting on Radon
REPORTER'S NOTEBOOK
A Journalist's Guide
to Covering
the Nation's
Second-Leading Cause
of Lung Cancer
Environmental Health Center
of the National Safety Council
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
Reporting on Radon
A Journalist's Guide to Covering
the Nation's Second-Leading
Cause of Lung Cancer
Produced by:
The Environmental Health Center,
a division of the
National Safety Council
Under cooperative agreement
No. CX-815922-01-0
with the
Radon Division
Office of Air and Radiation
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Table of Contents
Preface v
Introduction 1
Chapter 1: Understanding Radon -- The Four Ws 3
What is Radon? 5
Where is Radon? 8
Who is at Risk from Radon? 11
When was the Radon Threat Discovered? 12
Chapter 2: Testing for Radon;
Appropriate Follow-up Actions 15
How to Test 18
Deciding Whether to Fix Your Home 20
Using Your Test Results 20
Things to Consider 21
Short-term Actions to Reduce Radon Exposure 23
Long-term Actions to Reduce Radon Exposures 24
Chapter 3: Reporting on Radon: Should Radon's
Differences Make It LESS Newsworthy? 27
Chapter 4: Disputing the Radon Risks 35
Quantifying Chronic Health Risks 37
Estimating the Number of Lung Cancer Deaths 38
Fretting Over 'Routine' Risks 39
Target Worst Radon Homes First? 40
Risks for Smokers vs. Nonsmokers 41
Is EPA Being Overly Cautious? 43
... Or is the Agency Leaving People at Risk? 44
-------
Radon Questions and Answers 47
Sources 53
Glossary 57
-------
Preface
Radon As News:
Challenging Fundamental News Concepts?
Finding a cure for cancer would be big news. That's easy.
Even a cure for some cancers would make banner headlines.
But when it comes to cancer prevention, as in avoiding radon-
induced lung cancers, the story is different. In this context, radon
flaunts the notion that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound
of cure. As a news story, radon indeed challenges many of the
fundamental concepts involved in the journalism riddle: "What is
news?"
Rutgers University Environmental Communications Professor
Peter Sandman recites a dozen factors involving how citizens and
the media perceive environmental health risks. Collectively, they
almost spell-out a challenge to the press's approach to what
constitutes news when it comes to public health. Collectively, too,
they help explain why many feel radon-induced lung cancers are
among the most under-reported cancer risks.
As for challenging fundamental news precepts, consider a few
of the factors Sandman cites:
There is no villain. No one puts radon into the environment.
No industry emits or releases or spills radon into the environment.
Radon occurs naturally in most soils and rocks. It enters
individual homes and buildings through cracks and fissures
common to many structures. Those cracks and fissures are the
"fault" of no one in particular.
-------
There is no "victim." You can't point to a lung cancer victim
and conclude that radon was the cause of death. Cancer deaths
come with no "Radon-Induced" label. Radon's lethal effects are
chronic rather than acute; they show up as lung cancer only after
decades. In those cases, showing a cause-and-effect relationship is
impossible.
There is usually no immediate emergency, and "contror of the
problem rests with the individual. In most cases, there's no
additional cancer risk from radon by waiting a day or a week or
more before reducing the radon concentrations in one's
environment. The risk here is controlled not by some outside
force upon whom pressures can be brought, but rather by the
individual. Call it human nature: Because the timing is up to the
individual, the problem often goes unaddressed. "I can do it
tomorrow, so I won't do it today . . . . "
The threat is unseen and unfelt, and the risk occurs in that most
unlikely and most trusted of places. . . at home. Radon is invisible.
People can't see, taste, or smell it. It doesn't repulse them
physically or offend their senses. Rather, it lurks silently in the
background, working its mischief only after years of exposure. And
it does so often in that haven where people feel most safe . . .
the home. That fact creates a psychological barrier against seeing
a familiar situation as a risky one.
From a journalistic standpoint, the irony is that the radon
health risk issue has arisen at a time when much of the public
feels powerless to address and manage many of the environmental
health risks they perceive as harming them the most. And yet
here is one that they can control. Although radon is the nation's
second leading cause of dreaded lung cancer, informed citizens
have the wherewithal to assess and, if necessary, reduce their own
exposure risks easily and usually inexpensively. They can do so
without incurring large capital expenses and without enduring
difficult life-style changes.
Reporting on Radon has key information reporters need to
communicate effectively on the nation's second leading cause of
lung cancer. It provides a "one-stop read" on the environmental
cancer risk that outnumbers all others in annual mortalities. This
VI
-------
guide also raises the question of whether radon is an under-
reported news story precisely because it challenges traditional
approaches to evaluating the newsworthiness of environmental
health issues.
One point is obvious: The public depends on the media for
their understanding of environmental health risk issues. Citizens
will understand an issue no better than the reporter himself or
herself does. A second essential point: informed citizens, actively
involved in environmental risk policies, are the key to making
environmental programs work in the first place. The media's role
in that process is critical.
That point -- informed citizens actively engaged in managing
environmental risks -- is particularly relevant to radon, given that
radon risks in the end can be individually controlled. Audiences
besieged with countless threats over which they have little control
will find radon an exception to that general rule.
Reporting on Radon was prepared by the National Safety
Council's Environmental Health Center (EHC) with a grant from
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Radon Division,
Office of Air and Radiation. The National Safety Council is a 76-
year-old not-for-profit, nongovernmental public service
organization, headquartered in Chicago.
This guide is part of a continuing series of environmental
journalism activities undertaken by the Environmental Health
Center since its establishment in January 1988. EHC also has
published a reporters' guide on coverage of community chemicals,
and each month it publishes Environment Writer, a newsletter
aimed exclusively at print and electronic journalists covering
environmental health and pollution control issues.
EHC appreciates the substantive contributions to this
reporters' guide from free-lance writers and researchers Rob
Taylor, former environmental reporter for The Wall Street Journal',
Lani Sinclair; and Harold I. Sharlin. In addition, EHC benefited
substantially from critical reviews by Los Angeles-based science
writer Sandra Blakeslee and by San Jose, California, environmental
journalist Mitchel Benson of the San Jose Mercury News.
vn
-------
EHC in particular appreciates the commitment of EPA
project manager Peyton Lewis, in the Radon Division, to
protecting the journalistic integrity and purpose of the guide. The
approach by her and her colleagues in the Radon Division is
testimony to their expressed commitment to effective
environmental journalism.
Bud Ward
Executive Director,
Environmental Health Center
Vlll
-------
Introduction
Radon - The Uninvited House Guest
Radon may be our most underestimated cause of cancer.
In a Roper poll reported early in 1988, Americans rated
radon second lowest of 28 health threats, just ahead of microwave
ovens. Almost half the people surveyed said radon posed little or
no risk, or said they didn't know.
In fact, many scientists say radon should lead the list of
environmental public health risks. This radioactive gas is blamed
for causing more lung cancer deaths than any other single
pollutant except tobacco smoke. Some 20,000 Americans die each
year because of radon-induced lung cancers, the Environmental
Protection Agency now estimates. That figure means that radon
causes more mortalities than any other environmental pollutant
under the agency's vast jurisdiction.
Despite the risk, governments are unlikely to take direct
regulatory responsibility for radon control, but are more likely to
assess radon risks and advise the public on appropriate actions.
The job is mammoth, with this uninvited guest turning up in
homes almost everywhere. In many ways, radon problems are
ideally suited for individual response and action. And there's no
industry to carry blame or bill for damages. So officials have
assessed radon risks and have told the public what it needs to
know to take effective action. Beyond that, however, it is
primarily up to individuals to investigate their own radon problems
and solve them.
For most of us, however, that's not easy.
In fact, most people have done nothing. Sure, testing spurts
from time to time in response to flurries of news media interest.
But to date, few U.S. homes have even been actually tested, and
Introduction 1
-------
even fewer homes have been "mitigated" to reduce radon levels.
The slow response isn't unusual. Findings on cancer risks are
complicated, especially when it comes to separating big risks from
the small. Many consumers are skeptical or numbed by the
drumbeat of cancer alarms. Look how long cigarette smoking has
lingered.
All this magnifies the news media's role. If they don't explain
radon's risks and put them into perspective with other
environmental risks, few people will protect themselves. Without
"news you can use" on how to test and fix radon problems, even
many interested consumers will remain confused and frustrated.
Robert Taylor
(former environmental reporter)
The Wall Street Journal
Washington, D.C., bureau
Reporting on Radon
-------
Chapter 1
Understanding Radon:
The Four Ws
What, Where, Who and When
-------
Summary
A radioactive gas, radon occurrs naturally in most rocks and
soils. It can be found at various concentrations practically
anywhere on earth, but it's when concentrations rise in closed-
in buildings that health risks become a concern.
Radon is at the root of the problem, but the resulting lung
cancers actually arise as a result of two of radon's decay
products, isotopes of polonium. These so-called radon
"daughters" or "progeny" lodge deep in the lungs and emit
damaging alpha radiation. That can be the onset of a lung
cancer manifested onfy years or decades later.
The "Reading Prong* in the mid-Atlantic states has become
something of a household term in public health circles because
of perilously high radon levels. But scientists caution now about
thinking that radon risks are isolated to a few geographical "hot
spots."
Radon risks can endanger "anyone who breathes." The cancer
risks dwarf those responsibly linked to most other environmental
pollution problems. The young and smokers are especially at
risk.
The federal government has established a level offourpicocuries
of radon per liter of air as a guidance deserving follow-up
actions. But it would be a mistake to suggest that a level of
"four" is safe or free of the risk of inducing increased incidences
of lung cancer.
Radon-induced lung cancers, like all cancers, are chronic rather
than acute. That is, they develop onfy after prolonged exposures.
-------
Chapter 1
Understanding Radon:
The Four Ws
What, Where, Who and When-
What is Radon?
Radon-222 is a radioactive gas. Humans can neither see,
smell, nor taste it, but it turns up almost everywhere.
Radon occurs naturally in rocks and soil. Radon atoms are
uranium's direct descendants. When atoms of uranium-238 decay,
they produce several generations of other radioactive elements.
The fifth generation is radium, which in turn decays into radon.
Though great concentrations of uranium are rare, traces of it
are common in ordinary rock and soil. Concentrations vary. But
on average, about six atoms of radon emerge each second from
every square inch of soil. A typical concentration of radon in soil
is between 500 and 1,000 picocuries per liter of air (pCi/1).
Chapter 1: The Four Ws
-------
Radon Geology for Journalists
Geology isn't routinely taught as part of the journalism curriculum on
the nation's campuses. And it's not a subject most reporters feel
comfortable discussing as a result of things they've learned along the way.
But understanding a couple of fundamental principles of geology will
help reporters better understand and communicate on radon-related health
risks. Each principle is, says the Consumer Reports book Radon: A
Homeowner's Guide to Detection and Control, "highly unpredictable."
The first principle: There has to be a fairly rich concentration of
uranium in the soil to find very high radon concentrations in homes. The
existence of natural concentrations of uranium in the soil is a function of
chemical characteristics that have occurred over millions of years. But
when a uranium atom underground is transformed into a thorium atom, a
series of protracted but successive decay processes gets underway; over a
few hundred thousand years, the result is radioactive radium. The radium
itself decays into another radioactive element - radon - and it is radon, by
now a surface coating on underground rocks, which then can percolate
through the ground.
Some rocks and soils contain more uranium than others, though all
contain at least trace amounts. Consumer Reports' Radon book, for
instance, says rock routinely has about 2.7 pounds of uranium for each
million pounds of rock. Granite, on the other hand, has about 4.7 pounds
per million pounds, shale about 3.7 pounds. Compare that with sandstone
and basalt, for which the average is 0.5 and 0.9 pounds of uranium per
million pounds, respectively.
But the evolution of radon isn't just another link in a
monotonous chain. It is instead the single critical event in that
chain. Unlike its solid ancestors, radon is a gas -- it's mobile.
The slightest fissure in surrounding rock is enough to spring radon
gas from its centuries-old prison in the earth. It can move to the
surface with other soil gases. From there it is free to wander.
In the open air, most radon dilutes into insignificant
concentrations. But trapped and allowed to concentrate, as when
it continues to move up through the ground into a house, radon
becomes a serious public health problem.
Reporting on Radon
-------
Within a single rock formation, however, the range of uranium
concentrations - and therefore of radon - can vary widely. As a result,
geologists have difficulty in predicting just which areas may have high radon
levels in the ground.
The second geological principle: Radon concentrations built-up
in underground soils and rocks might remain there harmlessly were it not
for pathways that enable the radon to move through the ground. Radon -
- a fifth-generation decay product derived from uranium - has a half-life of
about 3.8 days. Half of it will decay in 3.8 days and half of the remaining
radon then decays over the next 3.8 days, and so forth.
Tightly packed or wet soils or clay, for instance, impede radon's
movement to the ground surface. Provide radon even microscopic cracks
or fissures through the soils, however, and radon atoms move more freely
through the ground. It's at the ground surface that radon can pose a risk
to an individual home. For the unfortunate, the radon atoms may find
their way through building cracks and openings into enclosed areas . . .
where high radon concentrations can pose increased lung cancer risks.
Those two geological factors in combination - normal to high uranium
concentrations and easy access for uranium's decay products to the ground
surface and into homes - pose the radon/lung cancer problem. Together,
they account for thousands of preventable lung cancer cases each year.
Actually, most radon found in homes poses no direct hazard.
It has a relatively short half-life of 3.8 days, meaning that by
emitting radiation, half the radon atoms evolve into another
element in less than four days. Its very mobility protects us from
its radiation. Though we breathe it into our lungs, it tends to pass
back out harmlessly as we exhale.
The deadly threats stem from two of radon's decay products,
solid isotopes of polonium. Because they revert to solid form,
these radon decay products can be inhaled and can lodge deep in
the lungs. There they linger like tiny time-bombs. And since they
have half lives of no more than a few minutes, they tend to "go
off before the lung can clear them.
Chapter 1: The Four Ws
-------
The harm itself results when the polonium isotopes emit
high-energy, low-velocity particles called alpha radiation. These
same alpha particles constantly bombard our bodies from outside
without harm; most cannot penetrate the dead outer layer of our
skin. But breathed deep into the lung, they can radiate and
penetrate sensitive and vulnerable lung tissue.
At equal concentrations of radioactivity, alpha particles, once
inhaled or ingested, are far more deadly cancer producers than
beta and gamma radiation. They move more slowly and deposit
their energy over a shorter distance. When alpha particles slam
into unshielded lung cells, they can sever strands of DNA's double
helix corkscrew, scrambling its genetic code. Cells are efficient at
repairing breaks in a single strand, simply copying the other,
according to David J. Brenner of Columbia University's
Radiological Research Laboratories. But damage from
double-strand breaks, he says, "may be permanent and may be
transmitted to the cell's daughters."
The effects may not be seen for years, or even decades. But
ultimately the damage causes certain cells to lose control over cell
division and growth. This dysfunction cell multiplication without
control -- is the health risk associated with exposures to radon and
its "progeny," and radon has been identified as the second leading
cause of lung cancers, behind smoking.
Where is Radon?
The Pennsylvania woman looked confused. "How," she
asked after an hour-long speech on radon, "do they get the radon
from nuclear power plants into the ground and over into the
houses?"
In fact, "they" don't. Radon occurs naturally almost
everywhere. Current estimates are that the average U.S. home
contains about 1.5 picocuries, but averages, as always, can be
misleading. In "hot spots" home readings soar over 2,000
picocuries per liter (pCi/1). Radon readings tend to range highest
in areas with high concentrations of uranium-bearing rocks, such
as granites, but there are plenty of exceptions to that rule.
To help people interpret radon readings, the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency initially established four
8 Reporting on Radon
-------
picocuries per liter of air as a rough annual average guideline.
The agency was not telling people that a level of 4 pCi/1 was "safe"
and that lower levels might not still lead to increased incidences
of lung cancer. Rather, the figure was essentially a technology-
based figure based on the agency's assessment of what
concentration could be achieved with existing radon reduction
technology and practices.
The agency urged people with higher readings to confirm
them with further tests and to cut radon below that level with
generally routine construction work or repairs. There continues
to be debate and controversy over the meaning of the "four
picocuries" guideline. Some members of the U.S. Congress feel
strongly that EPA's guideline can create a false sense of security
and that it in fact must not be seen as implying a level of "safety."
They prefer a lower threshold, and there are indications that EPA
is moving toward establishing a series of radon action levels,
including some below 4 pCi/1.
Initial screening tests conducted by EPA in some states
indicates some alarmingly high proportions of homes exceeding the
four-picocuries guideline. In Minnesota and North Dakota, 46 and
63 percent of the homes screened were found to have screening
levels above the 4 pCi/1 guideline. The average screening level
found in North Dakota home tests was a surprisingly high 7 pCi/1,
almost doubling the EPA threshold.
On the other hand, low levels are common in some states.
In Alabama, for instance, radon screening levels reached the EPA's
"action level" in only 6 percent of the homes EPA tested. Even
at that low rate, however, hundreds of Alabama households would
benefit from radon testing. Furthermore, despite the low radon
readings for most Alabama households, one house tested there
recorded a 180-picocurie per liter reading!
Some critics have warned that these short-term screening
measurements may be poor indicators of radon hazards. EPA and
these critics point out that radon can fluctuate widely over a short
period of time. They say that only long-term tests providing
annual average radon concentrations provide responsible measures
of potential radon health risks. EPA itself is beginning to
systematically conduct long-term tests in its National Survey.
Chapter 1: The Four Ws
-------
Variations within regions, states and even neighborhoods
unquestionably make radon levels hard to predict for a given
home. In the mid-1980s, some scientists tried to map radon-prone
areas from geologic data. But even when broader measurements
became available in 1986, high and low readings proved far less
reliable than many had hoped in providing accurate predictions
of high radon concentrations. The problem was that high radon
measurements could be found in areas mapped as being unlikely
to have a problem . . . and low readings found in areas thought
likely to have a serious problem. As tools for state and local
government strategies, and for shaping national radon policy, the
maps provide an excellent policy tool, but they are not useful in
terms of anticipating concentrations in a particular home.
Under its Radiation Action Program, initiated in 1985, EPA
has been working with the U.S. Geological Survey to provide states
with geological data they can use in surveying for radon. EPA by
mid-1989 had surveyed 25 states, and the agency says it now is
confident that geology "is a good indicator of potential high indoor
radon levels." Testifying before a House Interior and Insular
Affairs Subcommittee on oversight and investigations, EPA Office
of Radiation Programs Director Richard Guimond emphasized that
geological information alone, however, "is not enough. We need
a combination of geology and indoor radon measurements to
provide a full understanding of the scope and magnitude of the
radon problem."
While much of the public and media focus on radon has
concentrated on homes, the potential radon problem goes beyond
just personal residences.
It turns out that homes aren't the only places where radon is
a problem. An initial EPA survey of 131 schools in 16 states
found 19 percent of schoolrooms had screening levels exceeding 4
pCi/1, with the highest reading at 136 pCi/1. The schools tested,
however, were not chosen to necessarily represent a cross-section
of all the nation's schools, and it is possible that typical school
radon levels will be different. Under the Indoor Radon
Abatement Act, passed in 1988, the agency is to list high radon
risk areas in order to evaluate radon contamination in schools.
EPA will use geological and indoor radon data to conduct a survey
of radon in schools.
10 Reporting on Radon
-------
Mostly, radon gets into buildings through basement and
foundation cracks, drains and joints. Because it can dissolve in
water, however, radon also can ride into kitchens and bathrooms
in water drawn from private wells. When the water sprays from
a faucet, aeration again releases radon into the air, where it
sometimes builds up to high levels in the air.
Radon in water accounts for between 1 and 3 percent of the
radon health problem, and most of the problem occurs in homes
in the northeastern United States. However, homes relying on
private wells probably should test for radon as a precaution.
People living above the second floor may be able to relax in
terms of residential radon. Radon dilutes as it moves upward
within a building. Under closed-house conditions, radon readings
in basements tend to be about double those on the first floor.
Unless a central heating and air conditioning system or water is
bringing in most of the radioactive gas, readings in second floor
and above drop off even more sharply.
Who is at Risk From Radon?
Anyone who breathes. The risk grows with the level and
duration of radon exposure.
Risks resulting from exposure to radon are far greater than
risks posed by most other dangerous substances. Take people who
spend a lifetime in homes with a relatively high radon level of 20
pCi/1. Scientists say they face about the same cancer risk as
people who smoke about one and a half packs of cigarettes per
day; six in 100 may die of lung cancer as a result of exposure to
radon, according to EPA. By contrast, federal agencies usually
crack down on exposure to a chemical only when it is thought to
cause cancer deaths in more than one person in a million.
It is fortunate that 20 pCi/1 has been found in only 2 percent
of the more than 20,000 homes where the EPA conducted
screening tests, according to the EPA.
But, as mentioned above, even at 4 picocuries per liter -
EPA's initial trigger for recommending radon reduction -- radon
exposures aren't "safe." In fact, "that level still has a fair amount
of risk," says Richard Guimond, director of EPA's Office of
Chapter 1: The Four Ws 11
-------
Radiation Programs. The EPA says it poses almost the same risk
as smoking a half-pack of cigarettes a day - it will cause fatal lung
cancer in as many as 3 percent of the people exposed for a
lifetime.
Notwithstanding EPA's caveats, many in EPA and Congress
are concerned that the four-picocuries guideline unintentionally
encourages people to ignore the risks at or below that level.
Having initially chosen that guideline because they feared
contractors might be unable to achieve a lower level, agency staff
point to new experiences demonstrating that contractors now can
cut high radon levels well below the EPA threshold. Encouraged
by Congress, the agency is expected to issue added warnings on the
danger of levels lower than 4 pCi/1.
Some people need to worry more about radon than others.
The National Academy of Sciences estimates the risk of lung
cancer from radon is up to 10 times higher for smokers than
non-smokers, perhaps because radon decay products can hitch a
ride into the human lungs on tobacco particles that remain
suspended in smoke.
Children also may be more vulnerable to radon. They have
a longer life-span to allow latent cancers to become malignant
growths, they breathe faster, and their rapidly-dividing cells may be
more vulnerable to radiation damage. The International Council
on Radiation Protection estimates that children and youths under
20 years old face triple the adult risk.
When was the Radon Threat Discovered?
Underground miners have been dying of radon-induced lung
cancers for centuries, but it wasn't until the 1950s and 1960s that
the two were clearly linked.
In response, U.S. regulators first set rules for reducing mine
radon levels by ventilation. In the 1970s health officials also
turned to cleaning up uranium mill tailings that continued to emit
radon, including some that had been used as foundations for
homes.
12 Reporting on Radon
-------
Acute Versus Chronic Hazards
An important part of the "when" of radon involves just when its health
effects are manifested. In scientific jargon, exposures that cause illness
or death within days or weeks are termed acute hazards. Hazards that
cause effects such as cancer long after low-level exposures are termed
chronic. Even the highest radon exposure levels are chronic rather than
acute hazards.
Radiation poses acute hazards at short-term whole-body exposure of
more than 150 rem. (According to current estimates, exposing the lung to
four pCi/1 of radon in air for one full year carries about the same risk as
exposing the entire body to one rem of radiation.) A person hit with 5,000
rem of radiation suffers an incoherent fit along the lines of an epileptic
seizure. Death follows within a few days. Survival is still unlikely with
exposures as low as 600 rem, which produce nausea, vomiting and malaise.
The symptoms may ease temporarily, then return with a vengeance. The
victim's hair falls out. Often, the weakened victim falls prey to an infection.
Most people will show little or no immediate acute effect from
exposure to 100 rem or less of radiation. These and smaller doses of
radiation cause subtle, cumulative damage that tends to lie dormant. Even
tiny amounts of radiation may add to the cancer risk. Though some
scientists believe that cells can repair damage from small amounts of
radiation, the prevailing scientific view is that no amount of radiation may
be considered "safe."
The hazard from chronic low-level exposure to radiation stems from
short-term damage it does to cells' DNA, or genetic code. The harm can
often remain invisible for decades. Then, perhaps with the assistance of a
substance that "promotes" rather than "initiates" cancer, some descendants
of the damaged cells abandon their control of cell growth and division.
To estimate the risk of cancer from radon, scientists studied
underground miners who breathed high radon levels in their work. The
studies uniformly conclude that these miners suffered lung cancer more
often than the general public, and most studies found the incidence of
cancers was directly related to the radon exposure.
Using these data and estimates of home radon levels, the Environ-
mental Protection Agency has estimated that radon causes approximately
20,000 U.S. lung cancer deaths each year. That puts it second only to
smoking as a cause of lung cancer, the leading cancer killer. Lung cancer
is expected to kill 160,000 people in 1989, according to the American
Cancer Society.
-------
But officials showed little interest or concern in naturally
occurring radon in homes until 1984, after nuclear plant worker
Stanley Watras set off alarms that shocked the public health world.
Mr. Watras had dumbfounded workers at the Limerick, Pa.
nuclear plant by repeatedly triggering radiation alarms. Eventually,
his colleagues and employer became startled that he was bringing
radiation into the plant. When Watras tested his home, he
discovered the highest residential radon level ever found until that
time - 2,700 pCi/1.
"The Watras incident really changed the ballgame," says the
EPA's Guimond. Homes built on mill tailings had registered up
to 100 to 200 pCi/1, he recalls. "We thought the highest naturally
occurring radon in homes would be no more than one-tenth of
that."
The Watras incident set off a house-to-house search for
radon. Initially, concerns focused on a uranium-prone geologic
formation called the Reading Prong, stretching across eastern
Pennsylvania into northeastern New Jersey. But in 1986, as radon
readings trickled in from around the U.S., risky radon levels turned
up in all regions tested. "Hot spot" clusters of homes, with radon
readings of hundreds and even thousands of picocuries per liter,
were found in several states.
U.S. officials agreed that radon isn't just a local problem, but
a national one. Indeed, testing in Europe demonstrated that it is
international. Radon, people discovered, respects no boundaries.
14 Reporting on Radon
-------
Chapter 2
Testing for Radon:
Appropriate Follow-up Actions
-------
Summary
As a personalized environmental threat potentially affecting
neighboring individuals differently, radon is unique among
environmental public health risks.
Testing for one's own radon risks is economical, and repairs,
when necessary, are usually inexpensive, in line with many other
"routine" household maintenance and repair projects.
Short-term tests of just a few days offer an effective screening
indicator of the extent of potential radon concentrations.
However, because radon levels in a home fluctuate widely over
time, long-term readings over the course of several seasons
provide the most reliable indication of annual exposure levels.
Varying ranges of radon concentrations will justify a series of
responses depending on the severity of the problem. Some short-
term steps can be taken immediately while a long-term solution
to high radon reading? is considered and undertaken.
-------
Chapter 2
Testing for Radon;
Appropriate Follow-up Actions
Unlike smog or stratospheric ozone depletion, radon is a
personalized environmental threat, one that potentially affects next-
door neighbors in far different ways. The threat comes not from
the vapors of the sky or the vastness of the atmosphere, but from
one's own home.
Now that do-it-yourself radon tests are economical, easy to
use, reliable, and readily available, most homeowners can - and
should ~ measure the radon levels in their homes. A neighbor's
low radon reading is not a substitute for a reading in an adjacent
or nearby home; differences in houses and underlying soil can
produce widely varying radon levels in neighboring nouses.
Given the relative ease and economy of radon testing and the
unpredictability of high radon concentrations, EPA and the Office
of the Surgeon General of the United States recommend that most
homes be tested. Only testing, they say, provides homeowners a
Chapter 2: Testing/Appropriate Follow-up
17
-------
level of confidence about the potential radon exposures they
personally face.
How to Test
To better report on radon-related lung cancers, reporters
need to understand how testing and radon reduction actually work.
The most popular commercially available radon detectors are
the charcoal canister and the alpha track detector. However, a
variety of different measurement methods is available for
determining radon concentrations.
Charcoal canisters usually are used for making short-term
measurements of two to seven days. Alpha track detectors
measure radon for a minimum of a month, but more often for
three to 12 months. Both devices are then sent back to the
manufacturers' laboratories for analysis. Results are reported
either in "working levels" of radon (WL), or "picocuries per liter"
(pCi/1) of radon gas.
Definitions
Picocurie ... A curie is a standard measurement for radioactivity,
specifically the rate of decay for a gram of radium -- 37 billion decays per
second. A picocurie (pCi) is one millionth of one-millionth of a curie.
Working Level... A working level, derived from safety and health
regulations covering mining, is a measurement of radon decay products,
rather than of radon itself. Roughly, one picocurie per liter of radon gas
is the same as 0.005 working levels. So 1 working level (WL) is equal to
about 200 picocuries of radon gas. The term itself generally is used less
often than picocuries as a unit of measure.
Decay Product... Radioactive materials degrade to give rise to decay
products, often referred to informally as "daughters" or "progeny." The
radon decay products of most concern from a public health standpoint are
polonium-214 and polonium-218.
18 Reporting on Radon
-------
In addition to the charcoal canisters and alpha track devices
most familiar to the general public, other devices also can be used
to measure radon concentrations. Continuous radon monitoring
methods, for instance, use an electron detector to accumulate and
store periodic radon concentrations. Installed in homes according
to specified federal procedures, they can be used only by a skilled
operator. While generally very precise in their measurements,
these continuous monitoring methods cost much more to use than
the charcoal canister or alpha track, and they are susceptible to
sampling errors.
Another measuring device is the "E-PERM," an acronym for
the "Electret Passive Environmental Radon Monitor." Installed in
the home for two to seven days or three to 12 months for short-
and long-term E-PERMs respectively, these devices contain a
charged electret which reacts to radiation from radon and radon
decay products. Once exposed for the specified amount of time,
they are resealed and sent to an analytical laboratory for
evaluation.
Some state or local governments provide radon detectors to
homeowners either at no charge or at a reduced cost; many
hardware stores, grocery stores and mail-order firms regularly stock
several varieties of detectors.
Though instructions vary according to which type of device
the homeowner has chosen, several basic rules apply to radon
measurements:
EPA-listed detectors should be used.
The most accurate way to estimate the annual radon level
in your home is with a long-term test over a one-year
period in the area(s) of your home where you spend
most of your time. Alpha track detectors and electret
ion detectors are the most common long-term testing
devices.
The fastest way to find out if you have a radon problem
is to place a short-term testing device in your home for
a few days to several months. However, short-term tests
should only be used in the lowest living area of the
home, with doors and windows closed, during the cooler
months of the year. This process reduces the chance of
Chapter 2: Testing/Appropriate Follow-up 19
-------
measuring the home when radon levels are lower than
usual. Charcoal test kits and electret ion detectors are
the most common short-term testing devices.
Deciding Whether to Fix Your Home
Because no level of radon is considered absolutely "safe," a
person should try to reduce radon levels in his or her home as
much as possible and practical. The average radon level in homes
is about 1.5 pCi/1. A person should definitely take action to
reduce radon if the average annual level is higher than 4 pCi/1.
The table below shows what radon reductions are possible.
You can expect to achieve:
2 - 4 pCi/1 In most cases
less than 2 pCi/1 Sometimes
Using Your Test Results
The EPA originally developed a 4 pCi/1 guideline for action
which was based on the technology available at that time. The
agency did not recommend short-term measurements as a way of
estimating health risks, but rather recommended long-term testing.
In October 1988, Congress passed the Indoor Radon
Abatement Act which called for EPA to do away with action levels
and to begin researching whether short-term measurements can
predict annual average concentrations.
After preliminary research, EPA developed some of these
correlations, and offered this guidance:
Short-term test results and long-term results should be
interpreted differently. If long-term test results are elevated, one
should take action to lower the radon level in the home.
If short-term test results are elevated, the best way to
determine the annual radon level is by measuring again over a
one-year period. Preliminary research shows that short-term tests
generally overestimate annual levels by one to three times:
20 Reporting on Radon
-------
If Short-Term Then Estimated Annual
Result (pCi/1) Is: Radon Level (pCi/1) Is:
1 1 .3
2 2 .7
3 3-1.0
4 4 1.3
5 5 1.7
6 6-2.0
7 7-2.3
8 8 - 2.7
9 9-3.0
10 10 3.3
11 11 - 3.7
12 12 - 4.0
If the short-term test results are low, a person may want to
test again. This is to make sure that the test was not conducted
at a time when radon levels happened to be much lower than
usual.
Some scientists believe that this guidance is an intermediary
step. After more research is completed, they think it may be
possible for EPA to recommend taking action based on a short-
term measurement.
Things to Consider
In addition to testing radon levels, a homeowner concerned
about radon exposures, while considering and taking specific
actions, should ask several questions to determine radon risk:
Does anyone in the household smoke?
Are there children in the family?
Do people spend unusually high amounts of time in the
home, perhaps because of individual illnesses, age,
occupation or personal preference?
Does anyone sleep in the basement, where radon levels
are higher than on other floors?
The more affirmative answers a homeowner has to these
questions, the sooner he or she should act to reduce the radon
levels of the house.
Chapter 2: Testing/Appropriate Follow-up 21
-------
Measuring for Radon
Measuring for radon is easy, and generally quite reliable, though one
must be careful not to read too much into short-term radon tests.
For most persons, use of a short-term test kit or measuring device
over a period of two to seven days is an effective way to begin
understanding potential individual radon risks. Charcoal canisters, for
instance, are exposed to air in a room, and the charcoal adsorbs radon gas.
The kits then are mailed back, air-tight, to a laboratory, which measures
them for radioactivity. That allows an evaluation of the level of radon to
which a kit was exposed.
It may be helpful for reporters and their audiences to think of these
tests as providing something of a snapshot of the radon situation in a
particular home. While radon levels in a home vary widely from room-to
room, day-to-day, and season-to-season, short-term devices will provide
homeowners with what EPA calls a "screening measurement" aimed at
helping them determine whether they have a potential problem. They
cannot identify the specific extent of a problem, but rather help identify the
potential for a radon problem.
A short-term screening measurement of more than four picocuries per
liter of air likely will warrant additional testing, while substantially higher
measurements would justify three-month testing to see if the high radon
levels are confirmed. The three- to 12-month test should provide an ample
indication of the seriousness of the problem, without unduly prolonging high
exposures.
Unlike the short-term tests, longer-term radon measuring detectors
provide truer indications of annual average radon concentrations in the
When the testing and re-testing results have been determined,
the owner of a house with radiation levels that require action
should contact the state radiation office for advice about which
measures are needed to reduce the home's radon levels, which of
those measures can be done by the homeowner alone, and which
will need to be done by a trained professional.
Short-Term Actions to Reduce Radon Exposure
Certain steps can be taken even while more long-term radon-
reduction measures are considered. Here are some actions that
22 Reporting on Radon
-------
home over a period of time. Somewhat more expensive than the short-
term charcoal canisters, these radon test kits are exposed for three months
to a year and generally are viewed as providing the most reliable and most
representative measurements of annual average radon levels in a home.
The alpha track kits, for instance, feature a piece of special plastic in
a filtered container. Alpha particles emitted by radon gas "track" the plastic,
leaving small tracks or scars which later are counted by a laboratory as an
indicator of radon concentration. Continuous radon measurement devices,
integrated radon sampling units, grab sampling instruments, and charcoal
liquid scintillation cells also can be used, though they typically require a
trained operator for them to be used effectively. Passive radon monitors
using a charged etectret to react with radiation from radon or radon gas can
be used for either short- or long-term tests.
Neither the charcoal canister nor the alpha track kit is particularly
difficult to use, and both can be returned by mail for analysis. Both are
considered "passive" tools, in that they require no external power but rather
are merely placed in an appropriate test location.
Both charcoal canister and alpha track radon test kits can be
purchased at many hardware, grocery, and home supply stores throughout
the country. Some state and local governments also supply radon detectors
to residents, and newspaper and TV/radio audiences can be referred to
state radiation protection offices for information about availability of testing
kits in their areas.
Many reporters find that information on selection, use, and
interpretation of radon test kits make effective sidebars for hard-news
stories on radon risks.
homeowners can take to reduce radon risks to themselves and
their families:
If possible, spend less time in areas where radon levels
are highest, such as the basement.
Stop smoking and discourage smoking in the home.
Smoking may increase the risk of exposure to radon, in
addition to increasing overall chances of getting lung
cancer.
Chapter 2: Testing/Appropriate Follow-up 23
-------
As often as practical, open windows throughout the
house and turn on fans to increase the air flow into and
through the house, especially in the basement.
Long-Term Actions to Reduce Radon Exposure
For homes with higher radon concentrations, radon officials
recommend, along with the above, more thorough actions to
reduce those levels - actions which either reduce the rate at which
radon enters the house, or forces the radon out of the house once
it has entered.
Reducing the rate of radon entering the house can be
accomplished either by blocking off or sealing the places in which
it enters, or by reversing the direction of the flow of these
pathways so the indoor air and radon is pushed out, rather than
brought into the house. The best way to force radon out of the
house is to increase ventilation.
A contractor who specializes in ridding homes of radon
should be hired for the more complex remedies. These contractors
in general are not the same firms that produce radon detectors.
EPA regional offices, state radon offices, Better Business Bureaus,
and local consumer affairs departments should have lists of radon
contractors.
Long-term methods to reduce radon levels, and their
approximate repair costs, include:
Sub-slab suction by installing pipes and fans to pull radon
from under the slab foundation is generally considered the most
effective radon reduction technique. The same approach can be
taken with drains and/or block walls. A trained professional
should install the system.
Sealing major radon sources and entry points involves covering
exposed earth in basements, storage areas, drains, and crawl spaces
with impermeable materials, such as plastic sheet metal, and
sealing cracks and openings with mortar or urethane foam. This
step generally is considered most effective when taken in
combination with other radon-reduction efforts. Advice on
identifying areas to seal should come from an experienced
professional, who may have to do some of the work.
24 Reporting on Radon
-------
Forced cross-ventilating, by using fans on both sides of the
house.
Heat-recovery ventilating, suitable in homes that need heating
for several months of the year. A heat-recovery ventilator or "air-
to-air heat exchanger" has a pair of fans to blow stale air out the
house and draw in fresh air. They also reclaim some of the heat
the furnace generates while maintaining the adequate ventilation
needed to reduce the home's radon. Installation and annual
operating costs will vary widely throughout the country.
Adjusting air pressure within the house by providing air from
outside to appliances that would otherwise use air in the house for
combustion. By providing appliances such as the furnace,
fireplace, and clothes dryer with external sources of air, the air
pressure inside the house is increased, reducing the amount of
radon drawn up into the house. This work must be done by an
experienced professional, and the costs will vary according to the
difficulty of venting each appliance.
Chapter 2: Testing/Appropriate Follow-up 25
-------
Important Questions
Effective and accurate news reporting about radon requires a proper
balance of urgency, information and reassurance. It is important for
homeowners to know that radon is a serious environmental health threat.
But it is just as important for them to know that radon is a manageable
threat that can be handled by individuals who are educated about how to
determine their risk from radon, and how to remedy that risk.
Questions to consider when preparing stories on radon include some
obvious ones: How serious is the radon threat locally? Have residents
been testing for radon? What are they finding? How soon should
additional testing be done?
But some questions to consider will require more thoughtful reporting:
How can homeowners be informed about radon without
being scared off by the specter of lung cancer - and therefore
never testing their homes?
Why do homeowners not test - for logistical, financial, or
emotional reasons? Is there a rationale to their non-testing? Or
is it something they "just haven't gotten around to yet"?
Are there reliable and certified contractors in the state to
implement the needed long-term methods to reduce high levels
of radon - and is it easy to find them? Do local universities
and laboratories have radon experts available to answer
questions?
Has EPA, the state, or anyone else done residential or
school testing? How extensive was the testing? What were the
results? Have schools undertaken radon-reduction activities?
-------
Chapter 3
Reporting on Radon:
Should Radon's Differences
Make it LESS Newsworthy?
-------
Summary
Radon challenges some fundamental assumptions of journalism
in answering the riddle: "What is news?" For journalists, radon
poses intriguing challenges to conventional attitudes on
environmental health reporting.
With no clear "villains" and no "victims," this invisible and
odorless pollutant proves an elusive target, but its status as the
nation's second leading cause of lung cancer makes it an
important public health issue of interest to households
throughout the country.
Radon may be the exception that proves the rule, but like other
issues that make good news, it requires extra effort The "bad
news" in the radon story is that radon causes thousands of
unnecessary lung cancer deaths each year in the U.S. and that
available steps to avoid future deaths are being ignored in many
quarters. The "good news" is that radon reduction techniques
are readily available and generally economical
An extensive body of scientific evidence from Central Europe and
from underground mining activities provides human data on
radon's health effects. As a result, scientists are "considerably
more certain of the risk estimates for radon" than they are for
risk estimates based solely or primarily on animal tests.
-------
Chapter 3
Reporting on Radon:
Should Radon's Differences
Make It LESS Newsworthy?
Radon doesn't fit the usual mold.
For journalists, one might think that would make it inherently
interesting, man bites dog and all that.
But it doesn't seem to work that way. In fact, one could
argue that the very things that make radon and its associated
health effects different from other environmental problems also
make them somehow less newsworthy. Particularly given the
health risks associated with radon exposures, it's a situation that
should give environmental journalists pause.
Consider some of the factors that set radon apart from other
environmental pollutants.
For one, radon is a radioactive gas which occurs naturally as
a result of the radioactive breakdown, or decay, of uranium and
Chapter 3: Radon's Differences
29
-------
radium in the soil. That means there is not the usual 'Villain"
associated with putting the pollutant there in the first place. It
also means there is no identifiable "deep pockets" on which to fix
blame or assess penalties, no institutional greed that might be tied
to some variation of midnight dumping.
The pernicious effects of prolonged radon exposures are well-
documented, documented in fact through extensive radiation and
human health studies, and not dependent on ambiguous
extrapolations from rats or mice to humans. At the same time,
the effects - specifically the increased chances of incurring lung
cancer ~ are manifested only after prolonged exposures and after
long latency periods. Radon-induced lung cancers don't appear
over night, but rather over time.
That means there is a lot of time, and a lot of complex
variables, before radon-induced lung cancers take hold.
Radon is different in other ways that set it sharply at odds
with the conventional environmental health problems symbolized,
for example, by an oozing 55-gallon drum. Unlike the pervasive
effects of urban smog or contaminated aquifers, radon poses
personal risks which individuals themselves can reliably detect and
measure. If you are at risk of increased lung cancer in your home
because of excessive radon concentrations, it's not terribly hard for
you ... or your readers or viewers ... to find that out.
Measuring radon concentrations in one's living environment and
then determining, based on those measurements, whether the
associated risks are "acceptable" is something within the reach of
pretty much all of us.
It's not terribly expensive, and not at all time-consuming or
complex. For $10 or so, most of us can get an early indication of
whether our homes might harbor radon concentrations that would
justify further analysis or, possibly, fix-up efforts. The situation
stands in stark contrast to the kinds of enormous societal costs
associated, for instance, with clean-up of hazardous waste sites or
with meeting health-based air quality standards in smog-ridden
urban areas.
Humans can't taste, smell, or see radon, but this isn't one of
those cases where what you don't know can't hurt you. It can. In
fact, as discussed earlier, radon exposures account for more
incidences of lung cancer than any other cause except cigarette
30 Reporting on Radon
-------
Testing for Radon
Two interesting characteristics of radon set it apart from other
environmental health risks:
. . . individuals in most cases can easily test their own home
environments to establish the level of radon risk they may face; and
.. . once concerned that they face unacceptable risks, individuals in
most cases can move effectively to reduce those radon risks, and they
usually can do so without incurring exorbitant costs and without making
changes in their own lifestyle.
In effect, radon is a risk that your readers and listeners can evaluate
as it applies to them specifically. And it is one they can reduce on their
own if they choose to.
smoking, according to the U.S. Surgeon General's office. Given
that lung cancers have an overall fatality rate of 54.1/100,000
population, the public health benefits of reducing radon exposures
are clear.
While the risks posed by high radon concentrations constitute
the "bad news," the "good news" lies in the fact that those risks
can be controlled - controlled without imposing huge costs or life-
style changes along the lines of reducing personal car use or
shifting to alternative fuel supplies.
The media come in for their share of criticism for "loving
villains." And there's no question that a good villain can make for
good news copy.
At the same time, however, the public and the media also
love a good hero. What makes the radon story so enticing and so
juicy from a reporter's standpoint is not only that it involves a
significant public health issue -- "one of today's most serious
public health issues," according to Dr. Vernon J. Houk, Assistant
Surgeon General of the U.S. Public Health Service but also that
the individual risks are manageable and controllable, once the risk
is detected.
Chapter 3: Radon's Differences 31
-------
Another important element in a good story is evidence. In
the case of radon-induced lung cancers, the scientific evidence is
as strong as any in the environmental health field. "From all the
evidence, radon in the home is the most deadly environmental
hazard in America today," says Robert E. Yuhnke, a radon
specialist with the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), a national
environmental organization.
Evidence? What evidence? It turns out that as long ago as
the sixteenth century, radon-induced lung cancers are believed to
have plagued miners in Central Europe. Notwithstanding some
uncertainty about the precise levels of health risk posed by
different radon concentrations and exposures, public health
specialists point out that radon risk estimates are based on
scientific studies of human beings exposed to radon in their
underground mining jobs. That obviates the need to rely on
frequently more uncertain extrapolations from animal tests,
although such tests only reinforce concerns raised from human
data.
In the case of radon, more research over time has led to
more consensus. Studies done by the U.S. Public Health Service
in the 1960s pointed to a strong correlation between lung cancer
and American underground workers exposed at high radon levels.
American miners exposed to lower radon exposures suffered less
lung cancer.
Based on studies of survivors of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki
atom bombs and of British patients x-rayed extensively for arthritis
of the spine, it is clear that radiation produces lung cancer. "It
was not a simple matter to relate these exposures to those from
radon, but this has now been done," Consumers Union says in
Radon.
Writing in that book, University of Pittsburgh physics
professor Bernard L. Cohen explains that "for good geochemical
reasons," uranium and coal do not occur together. Coal mines
therefore have very little radon. They do, however, have diesel
fumes, dust, and other possible sources of lung cancer. "Coal
miners have high rates of nearly every respiratory disease,
including bronchitis, pneumoconiosis, and pneumonia. At one
time it was thought that they also suffered a high rate of lung
cancer, but more careful studies have shown conclusively that lung
cancer incidence among coal miners is very close to the national
32 Reporting on Radon
-------
average. This confirms that radon, and not chemical agents, is
very probably the culprit that causes lung cancer in uranium
miners."
With the radon risk estimates based on scientific studies of
miners, "scientists are considerably more certain of the risk
estimates for radon than they are of those risk estimates which
rely solely on studies of animals," the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency concludes in "A Citizen's Guide to Radon:
What It Is and What To Do About It."
Studies of sixteenth-century silver miners in the Erz
Mountains separating East Germany and Bohemia (now
Czechoslovakia) demonstrate that radon-induced lung cancers are
not just a "new" problem. But residential radon became a
significant concern only when Swedish scientists in the 1970s found
unusually high radon levels in recently built homes. Builders were
using concrete with high radium levels. Further investigations
identified more homes with high radon concentrations resulting
from naturally occurring radon in the soil.
In the western U.S., says the Environmental Defense Fund,
high radon levels were traced to construction materials
contaminated by uranium mill wastes. Those ended up being the
proverbial tip of the iceberg, as homes throughout the U.S. --
many far from uranium mining areas - are believed to be
receptacles for naturally occurring radon.
"Ten years ago, no one imagined that such high levels of
radon would be found in so many homes throughout the country,"
EDF says.
Chapter 3: Radon's Differences 33
-------
Chapter 4
Disputing the Radon Risks
-------
Summary
Like other environmental health risks, radon is not without
controversy. But the debates over radon generally concern how
much of a cancer risk high radon concentrations pose, not
whether there is a risk in the first place.
The availability of human data based on studies of underground
miners gives scientists more confidence in the radon risk
estimates. Not having to refy solefy or primarily on animal
studies extrapolated to humans, policy makers feel more
comfortable in relying on radon risk estimates.
In the scheme of human health risks, radon ranks high among
the environmental risks. People should no sooner ignore radon
risks than they would other "routine" risks which they regularly
seek to control or minimize.
The U.S. EPA and the Office of the Surgeon General
recommend screening tests for all houses for radon
concentrations. Critics of that approach favor a targeting of
suspected high-radon-risk homes, but the difficulty of making
such predictions - and the relative ease of testing in the first
place - convince EPA that universal testing is a prudent and
effective preventive strategy.
The 4 pCi/l action guideline represents results from screening
tests designed to give an earfy indication of a potential radon
concentration problem. Many scientists feel there is no
absolutely safe level of radiation exposure, and they argue for
reducing unnecessary exposures when possible.
-------
Chapter 4
Disputing the Radon Risks
If you think you have never met an environmental issue
without controversy, and then along came radon . . .
. . . think again.
The radon issue too has its controversy, though the debate
tends to involve not whether high radon readings pose a public
health risk, but rather how much of a risk they pose, and under
what conditions.
Quantifying Chronic Health Risks
Quantifying chronic risks from low-level hazards is notoriously
imprecise. And in a field fraught with uncertainties, the range of
disagreement over radon's health effects is relatively small. For
many chemical hazards, risk estimates disagree by 100-fold or
more. For dioxin, for instance, the range is more than 1,000-fold.
Chapter 4: Disputing the Risks
37
-------
Why the uncertainty? Because for most hazardous substances
it is hard to get good data on humans. Few people have been
exposed for decades to known amounts of most hazardous
materials, and humans cannot be used as guinea pigs. Instead, the
hazard per dose is usually estimated from tests on laboratory
animals. Typically, this requires extrapolation that stretches
science to its limits. When laboratory mice develop nasal tumors
after breathing formaldehyde vapors throughout their short lives,
scientists try to deduce how a human would react to barely
detectable levels of the stuff. Credible scientists can employ a
variety of different assumptions in these calculations - with widely
varying results.
"Scientists are considerably more certain of the risk estimates
for radon than they are of those risk estimates which rely solely on
studies of animals," the EPA concludes in its pamphlet, "A
Citizen's Guide to Radon: What It Is and What to Do About It."
Although available animal studies support the human data
indicating health risks from radon exposures, it is the availability
and extent of the human data that underlies the strength of the
radon risk estimates.
Sheldon Krimsky and Alonzo Plough ~ two Tufts University
Center for Environmental Management professors who wrote
Environmental Hazards: Communicating Risks as a Social Process
-- agree. "Risk assessments for radon exposure carry a greater
certainty than those for many other exposures, because extensive
research has been done on the biological effects of radiation," they
say.
Estimating the Number of Lung Cancer Deaths
There is controversy over the number of lung cancer cases
attributable each year to radon. EPA estimates that some 20,000
lung cancer deaths in the U.S. each year are attributable to radon
exposures.
The agency uses the risk-per-unit-of-exposure assumption
developed by the National Academy of Sciences' Committee on
Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR). However, that
group itself made no estimate of the number of annual lung
cancer deaths because it believes no definitive data on indoor
radon exposures are available. The National Council on Radiation
38 Reporting on Radon
-------
Protection and Measurements (NCRP) -- a congressionally
chartered nongovernmental public service organization charged
with advising on radiation protection measures ~ in 1984
estimated 9,000 annual deaths attributable to radon-induced lung
cancers. It has not made a more recent estimate of radon-induced
lung cancer deaths. While less than EPA's current estimate of
some 20,000 lung cancer deaths annually because of radon, that
range of estimates is considered normal in health risk assessments.
Even proponents of lower radon risk-estimates concede that
radon risks are far higher than those associated with most
environmental health hazards regulated by EPA. The agency
calculates that lifetime exposure to average home radon levels
(about 1.5 pCi/1) will cause lung cancer in about 3 percent of the
population. Radiation researchers Dr. Jonathan M. Samet, with
the University of New Mexico Medical Center, and Anthony V.
Nero, Ph.D., a physicist at the University of California, Berkeley,
see the risk as only one-third that high or less. Nonetheless, they
write that, "For average Americans living in houses with an
average radon concentration, the lifetime risk is projected to range
... far higher than the estimated risk for most carcinogenic
pollutants that are regulated in outdoor air."
A February 1987 EPA staff report, "Unfinished Business: A
Comparative Assessment of Environmental Problems," for instance,
concluded, based on staffs "professional judgment rather than on
quantitative methods," that indoor radon and worker exposures to
chemicals rank highest in terms of potential cancer risks. That
group of EPA professional civil servants cited agency data
indicating that radon-induced lung cancers greatly outnumbered
annual cancer cases caused by 20 different toxic air pollutants.
Fretting over 'Routine' Risks?
Physicist and radon expert Anthony Nero agrees with the
characterization of radon as "an important environmental problem"
and one that poses risks "larger than risks that the EPA normally
regulates." However, Nero contends that the risk of even high
radon concentrations may nonetheless be tolerable to many
people.* He has argued, for instance, "while the public routinely
^Unpublished letter to the Environmental Health Center outlining Dr. Nero's
views of "the important radon issues," June 1989.
Chapter 4: Disputing the Risks 39
-------
copes with risks at this level in their personal environments, the
EPA has difficulty. It may be frustration with public inattention
that has led the EPA to exaggerate the problem so greatly despite
frequent cautions from the scientific community."*
"The fact is that the estimated risks from radon - even at
EPA's remedial action guideline of four picocuries - are no larger
than the observable risks that we routinely accept by living in
homes or using our cars or working at our jobs," Nero wrote to
the Environmental Health Center in June 1989. "In these places,
where we really spend our time, we encounter risks that have
about a 1 percent chance of eventually causing our deaths. In
contrast, the EPA, in regulating the extent to which industry or
cars pollute the atmosphere or water resources, rightly limits risks
to much lower levels, even as low as one in a million (instead of
one in a hundred). Considering these contrasts means we have to
develop a practical perspective on risks in the indoor environment,
not simply try to fit into the mold that is appropriate for
regulatory matters."**
EPA Director of Radiation Programs, Richard J. Guimond,
is not convinced by Nero's point that radon risks parallel those
"routinely accepted" by people. Guimond, in a June seminar for
journalists that EHC sponsored as part of this project, countered
that individuals in their homes and cars routinely take steps to
reduce even Routine" risks. They install banisters on stairways,
use seat belts, and install slip-proof stickers in showers and baths
to prevent falls. Guimond says people don't generally ignore
"routine" risks, and he thinks they shouldn't ignore radon risks
either, given that testing is reliable and generally inexpensive.
Target Worst Radon Homes First?
Nero, widely recognized as a responsible critic of EPA on
radon issues and one not prone to an "extreme" radiation-is-good-
for-you position, points to estimates that perhaps 50,000 to
100,000 U.S. homes have radon concentrations exceeding 20
picocuries per liter of air. "Addressing the problem in these
^Unpublished article entitled "Radon Hysteria," by Anthony V. Nero, Jr.
**Unpublished letter to the Environmental Health Center outlining Dr. Nero's
views of "the important radon issues," June 1989.
40 Reporting on Radon
-------
homes should occur first, and it will permit us to better
understand the issue of risk at lower levels," he writes. "Ironically,
the EPA, because of its screening protocol, overestimates the
number of such houses by about a factor of ten and says that they
deserve immediate follow-up, but still has not focussed its programs
to find them, even though it is now more than a decade since we
realized such houses occurred in significant numbers."*
On that point, Guimond counters that the agency for a
period of years in the early 1980s attempted to target those houses
likely to have the highest radon readings. But with no scientific
ability to reliably target hot-spot areas, and with houses within
single neighborhoods having widely different radon readings, he
says the approach is unworkable.
Risks for Smokers vs. Nonsmokers
Another aspect of EPA's radon approach that annoys critics
such as Nero is the agency's equating radon levels with numbers
of cigarettes smoked. The agency often has said, for instance, that
being exposed to a radon concentration of four picocuries per liter
of air over a lifetime exposure of 70 years raises the lung cancer
risk to that of a person who smokes half a pack of cigarettes a
day.
"Often the risk from radon - e.g., at the EPA guideline -- is
compared in inappropriate ways with smoking, exaggerating the
level of risk," Nero writes. "This is truly ironic since the risks
usually cited don't even apply to most people, but only to
smokers! We really need a better way of conveying information
on risk, just as we need to focus efforts that genuinely cause high
exposures and risks."**
Some critics suggest that EPA's averaged risk estimates for all
exposed individuals distort the risks for non-smokers because the
risks from radon are so much higher for smokers. Many scientists
believe that smoking doesn't just add to the risk from radon, it
multiplies it.
^Unpublished letter to the Environmental Health Center outlining Dr. Nero's
views of "the important radon issues," June 1989.
**See note above.
Chapter 4: Disputing the Risks 41
-------
Dispelling Popular Misconceptions
Reporters can help dispel some of the popular myths that researchers
say surround the radon issue. For instance:
Some people believe that radon builds incessantly up over time and
that repairs therefore get increasingly difficult and expensive. In fact, once
paths of entry into a home are closed, the risk is reduced.
Some people believe that radon contamination in their home can lead
to radiation contamination of other things, such as carpets, furniture and
utensils. They fear that finding high radon concentrations may force them
to replace household goods. Such fear prevents some people from testing
in the first place. There's absolutely no basis for these concerns.
Other people believe that radon is isolated to relatively few
geographical "hot spots." In fact, naturally occurring radon Is ubiquitous,
and high concentrations have been found throughout most of the country.
Some people take mistaken comfort in learning that a neighbor's
house or neighbors' houses have had low radon readings. In fact, a low
radon reading right next door does not necessarily guarantee a low reading
in one's own home. On the other hand, the incidence of numerous high
radon readings in a community should heighten a homeowner's commitment
to individual testing.
The risk of lung cancer for a smoker compared with a
nonsmoker is increased approximately ten-fold on average but
reaches twenty-fold or higher in heavier smokers," writes Dr.
Samet. Most experts contend that exposure risks for non-smokers
are sharply lower than EPA calculations suggest. "I'm not sure
public policy should be based on what the risk to the smoker is,"
says William Mills, a former EPA official who is senior technical
advisor for Oak Ridge Associated Universities in Washington, D.C.
EPA public health experts say that nonsmokers are just as
entitled to protection against incrementally smaller increases in
lung cancer risks as smokers are to the larger increased risks that
can result from the combination of smoking and high radon
concentrations. They point out, for instance, that nonsmokers
generally tend to be somewhat more risk-averse overall than
smokers. They say that nonsmokers therefore may feel more
strongly about avoiding smaller increased health risks than smokers
do about accepting incrementally larger increases in health risks.
42 Reporting on Radon
-------
Some people believe that radon poses no particular public health risk
to non-smokers, but rather only to smokers. The fact is that smokers are
especially at risk from high radon concentrations because the increased
particulates in the air provide radon a free ride into sensitive lung areas.
But nonsmokers also are at increased risk of incurring lung cancer from
radon. One thing for sure: High radon concentrations and smoking are a
risky combination.
Some people take a "Why test?" approach to radon. Considering that
the costs of radon testing compare with the costs of installing smoke alarms
- another common preventive health care tool - perhaps a "Why not test?"
attitude makes more sense in most cases.
As with all health risks, some people adopt an "It can't happen to me"
approach to radon. But it can. Those people might not think twice before
wearing seat belts or installing a banister down the basement steps. Why
not take similar precautions in reducing a risk which could lead to their
developing lung cancer down the road?
Do some people think they can tell whether their home has unusual
radon concentrations without first testing for radon? Apparently. Scientists
say there's no way: Testing is the only way of knowing what one's radon
level is.
Furthermore, EPA officials point out that legislation covering
public health issues often calls for protection of "sensitive
populations," that is population groups with particular
vulnerabilities to environmental insults. If those population
groups in the case of radon include smokers, one might ask,
shouldn't public policy be aimed at protecting those sensitive
groups?
Is EPA Being Overly Cautious?
Nero is not alone in his criticisms of EPA for its handling of
the radon risk issue. Some of the most stinging criticisms have
come from physics professor Bernard L. Cohen, of the University
of Pittsburgh. Cohen says he thinks the agency is being overly
cautious in recommending possible renovation of radon problems
in millions of U.S. homes which, he says, do not need their actual
radon levels reduced.
Chapter 4: Disputing the Risks 43
-------
Cohen thinks radon public policy should not be premised on
an assumption that there is no radiation threshold below which no
danger exists. In effect, Cohen is raising the issue of whether
there exists a threshold below which exposure to radiation poses
no risk.
There doesn't seem to be any doubt that radon is by far the
most dangerous radiation danger most of us face," Cohen told the
American Chemical Society's annual meeting in September 1988.
"But if it turns out that radon is harmless below a certain level,
then we should probably stop worrying about the very much lower
risks created by fallout from the Chernobyl reactor accident,
medical x-rays, reactor gas leaks, and so on."
The point here is a critical one. Note the phrase: "... if
it turns out that radon is harmless below a certain level . . . ."
The issue here is whether one can assume, from the standpoint of
public safety, a threshold below which radiation exposures present
no risk to human health. The accepted approach with many
carcinogens, for instance, is to assume no threshold below which
exposure will not lead to an increased risk of cancer. Many
scientists apply this same zero-risk threshold philosophy also to
radioactivity. The issue of whether a threshold exists for
radioactivity is one likely to remain unresolved for years to come,
and perhaps indefinitely, as scientists and public health policy
officials seek to address uncertainties.
. . . Or is the Agency Leaving People at Risk?
While EPA has its radon critics who contend that the agency
is over-estimating risks, it likewise has critics who say it is doing
too little to protect against radon-induced lung cancers. In its
citizens' guide to radon, for instance, the Environmental Defense
Fund says "cancer specialists believe that there is no known safe
level of exposure to radon or any other cancer-causing agent.
Rather, there is a dose/disease relationship, wherein even the
smallest exposure adds to the risk of disease."*
*Radon: The Citizens' Guide, Environmental Defense Fund, 1987.
44 Reporting on Radon
-------
EPA "recommends that remedial action be taken to reduce
exposure onty when radon concentrations exceed 4 pCi/1," EDF
writes, arguing that such an approach in effect tells the public that
a 4 pCi/1 level is "safe."
"The Environmental Defense Fund believes that the cancer
threat at 4 pCi/1 is much too high, and that EPA is misleading the
public into believing that dangerously high levels of radon
exposure are safe. The EPA standard is not safe." (emphases in
original)
Chapter 4: Disputing the Risks 45
-------
Radon Story Ideas . . .
Radon is a great first-day story, but some reporters find it
challenging to find good follow-ups. Here are some ideas:
Tap into state radiation, radon, and public health agencies to try
to identify local radon "hot spots."
Have local schools tested for radon, as recommended by the
federal government? If so, what have they found? Have they
found high radon concentrations but, for whatever reasons,
chosen not to make repairs? Why?
Consider having your newspaper or TV/radio station conduct its
own short-term tests at particular sites in your community.
How is business for local radon remediation firms? How do
citizens choose reputable companies? How much do repairs cost
in your community?
Most homeowners aren't testing for radon - ask several dozen
local residents why. Do they wear auto seat belts and pre-wash
their vegetables prior to cooking them? Are they smoking, rock-
climbing, sky-diving adventurers in pursuit of risk? Are they
aware of radon risks? Do they care?
Profile a radon-reduction contractor. What is that contractor's
"day in the life"?
Fraud watch: Are con artists promoting radon tests in your
community with mayonnaise jars and fly-by-night fixups?
Real estate: What are agents and brokers doing in your
community when it comes to property sales? Are radon
contingency clauses being added to home sale contracts? Are
developers adopting radon-proofing measures in their new
buildings?
Check your local area to see if schools are teaching radon testing
and reduction procedures. (U.S. EPA sponsors some such
schools throughout the country, for instance.)
Profile a homeowner who has tested a residence and made
improvements to reduce radon risks. Interview the neighbors.
-------
Radon Questions and Answers
What is radon?
Radon is a colorless and odorless radioactive gas that occurs naturally in
rocks and soils and in underground water supplies and outdoor air. It
occurs at varying levels throughout the U.S.
Does radon pose health risks only in select geographical "hot spots"?
That was once thought to be the case, based on high uranium
concentrations in former mining sites. In the mid-1980s, however, it
became clear that naturally occurring radon also posed significant public
health risks, and that the risks exist far and wide, well beyond recognized
"hot spots" such as the Reading Prong in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and
New York. The effect of this realization was to transform the radon issue
immediately into a national problem, one requiring a coordinated national
approach.
Are the health risks posed by natural radon any more or less serious than
those posed by radon resulting from activities such as underground mining?
The human body doesn't distinguish between natural and technological, or
anthropomorphic, radiation. A dose of one has the same effect as an equal
dose of the other. The real public health significance is that potentially
harmful concentrations of naturally occurring radon are ubiquitous: Radon
levels comparable to those found in underground mines have been reported
in residences in the U.S. Preventive health care strategies must confront
the radon issue on that basis.
What does EPA mean when it refers to a "screening measurement"?
EPA has recommended that individuals living below the third floor of
buildings conduct short-term radon tests so they will have a "screening
measurement" that provides an indication of the highest radon level likely
to be found in their home. A radon screening level above the four-
picocurie-per-liter guideline suggests more extensive follow-up measurements
Questions & Answers 47
-------
are desirable. Below that level, the individual is less likely to find an annual
average radon concentration that would warrant concern or immediate
follow-up actions.
Radon is identified as the second leading cause of lung cancers, behind
smoking. Are there other health effects identified with radon exposures?
An increased risk of developing lung cancer is the only known health effect
associated with exposures to elevated radon levels. Generally fatal, lung
cancer is the fastest-growing cause of cancer deaths in the U.S.
What exactly is meant when people refer to radon's "daughters"?
When radioactive materials decay, they give birth to new radionuclides.
Radon is one of the offspring of uranium, through a series of decay
processes that occur over thousands of years. But radon is not the last
step in that decay process. As radon itself decays, it gives rise to its own
"daughters" (also referred to as "progeny" or "decay products"). The radon
decay products of greatest concern from the standpoint of lung cancer are
polonium-214 and -218, because these decay in the lungs and emit alpha
panicles which can damage genetic materials (DNA) in the cells.
Is the federal government recommending that all residences in the United
States test for radon, even where there are no signs of high concentrations in
a neighborhood?
Precisely because one cannot predict whether a particular residence in a
neighborhood will have a high radon concentration, EPA has suggested that
most homeowners should test for radon. Reliable and economical testing
procedures make such tests a sound insurance policy for homeowners
wanting to manage their own potential cancer risks.
Is a concentration of four picocuries per liter of air *safe"? Is five picocuries
and more considered unsafe?
It just isn't that simple. The concept of "safety" is relevant, and some
individuals will feel comfortable with their cancer risks at a level that would
make others uncomfortable. The "beauty" of the radon issue - and what
distinguishes it from so many other environmental health issues - is that
individuals can detect and control their own cancer risks. There are
proponents of both a higher and a lower radon action level, but the
government's public health experts recommend reducing radon levels as
much as is practical. EPA believes most homeowners will find it practical
to reduce radon to less than four picocuries per liter of air.
48 Reporting on Radon
-------
Isn't it unrealistic for EPA's risk assessments to assume exposures at radon
concentrations over a 70-year life span?
EPA's risk estimates assume a person will be exposed to the radon level
found in the home for roughly 70 years and that the individual will spend
75 percent of his or her time in the home. Persons should take those
assumptions into consideration in assessing their personal risks, keeping in
mind that former or future residences may have lower, comparable or
higher radon levels than those found in the current home.
Is EPA attempting to impose radon testing and removal costs on the non-
smoking population based on risk figures that apply more accurately to
smokers?
Both smokers and nonsmokers are at increased risk of contracting lung
cancer as a result of prolonged exposures to elevated radon levels.
Stopping smoking and discouraging smoking in homes with elevated radon
levels will help reduce a family's overall chance of contracting lung cancer.
Because many nonsmokers are more "risk-averse1' than smokers overall,
nonsmokers frequently want to protect themselves against the incrementally
smaller increased risks of developing lung cancer.
Given that EPA's own radon risk assessments are based on 70-year exposures,
why is the agency concerned about risk exposures in schools, where exposure
durations certainly will be much shoner?
Preliminary EPA screening test data from 130 schools nationwide indicate
that elevated radon levels in schools may be at least as common as in
private residences. Children are more sensitive to radon exposures than
adults, because their lungs are smaller and they frequently breathe in and
out more rapidly. In addition, children have a higher cumulative risk over
time. For these reasons, EPA's radon guidance takes a "more cautious
approach" for schools than for private residences.
How do health risks posed by radon exposures compare with other
environmental health risks regulated by EPA?
Even in the lower end of various estimates of annual lung cancer deaths in
the U.S., radon exposures account for more fatalities than other
environmental pollutants overseen by EPA.
Questions & Answers 49
-------
rs
WCIC/OT:
401 M ST.. ; ~ " .;
I ' Q I -' '' - J
Does the presence of neighboring houses with high raa<5n concentrations , rP
mean that a nearby house also will have high readings? Do low radon
concentrations throughout the neighborhood mean a house will likely not
have a problem?
Having a neighbor whose house tested below four pCi/1 for radon is no
guarantee that your house will test similarly. Differences in pathways under
the house and through the foundation make such assumptions
inappropriate. On the other hand, a concentration of high radon readings
in the neighborhood should prompt homeowners to move more
expeditiously on testing their own homes. In that case too, however, high
readings in a neighboring home do not necessarily mean a separate home
also will test high.
What are the scientific bases for the lung cancer concerns which the
Environmental Protection Agency and the Office of the Surgeon General
attribute to radon exposures?
As with all pollutants, there is some uncertainty in estimating health risks
associated with radon. On the other hand, radon risk estimates are based
on scientific studies of miners exposed to different levels of radon in their
underground work. Because the risk estimates do not have to be
extrapolated from animal tests, scientists are considerably more certain of
radon risk estimates than they are of estimates based solely on animal
studies. In the case of radon, available animal tests substantiate the human
health data indicating increased incidences of lung cancers as a result of
radon exposures.
Does radon pose particular health risks for the elderly?
The long latency period for the onset of lung cancer generally exceeds the
life expectancy of an elderly person in any event. At the same time, high
radon concentrations would remain a concern for other family members in
the home.
Aren't radon testing kits inaccurate? And don't they therefore give inaccurate
radon risk readings?
The precise accuracy of radon test kits should not pose significant concerns
for individuals fearful of exposure to elevated radon levels. Responsible
test kits, when used as directed, provide reliable indications of radon
concentrations over the time the kits are used.
50 Reporting on Radon
-------
When should short-term screening tests be conducted? Does time of year
matter?
Winter screening tests are most effective because the larger differential
between outdoor and indoor pressure is likely to lead to higher entry of
radon into a house than would occur when indoor and outdoor
temperatures are closer. Because screening tests are designed to indicate
potential peak concentrations, cold-weather readings are generally preferable
to summer screening measurements. At the same time, it is important to
emphasize that a reading during any one season of the year will provide a
measure for just that season, and not for a full year. Short-term readings
are most helpful when complemented by long-term readings. This issue is
of particular importance in real estate transactions, given the large number
of home sales conducted in summer months, when short-term readings
might lead to inconclusive results. Summer radon readings typically are
lower than those taken in the winter.
Should I sell my house if it has a high radon concentration? Should I refuse
to buy a new house with a radon problem?
Would you sell your house because it doesn't currently have smoke alarms?
Or because it needs new roofing? Would you refuse to buy a new home
based solely on those criteria? Again: the "beauty" of the dilemma we face
with radon is that the problem, if there is one for a particular residence, is
eminently fixable, and usually for fairly reasonable costs.
Why should I spend more for a long-term test that takes a longer time before
giving me results than I would for a short-term test, which not only costs less
but which also provides results within a week of start-up?
The long-term radon test kits take into consideration seasonal variations,
which can be substantial. The less expensive short-term kits provide an
excellent indicator of whether a more expensive long-term test will be
warranted, but the short-term kits are no substitute for a long-term
measurement in those instances where elevated readings are indicated on
the short-term test. Unless an extremely elevated level were found by the
screening measurement ~ for instance, a level of 200 pCi/1 ~ quick
confirmatory measurements would be a prudent next step.
What radon testing device will give me the most reliable results?
Most radon test kits are accurate and reliable for the purposes for which
they are marketed. However, because long-term average exposures are
important, the long-term measurement devices provide the most reliable
radon readings economically available., . ,
Material belongs to:
Office of Toxic Substances Library ^
Questions & Answers U.S. Lnv;;^n;nental Protection AgEticy
40! V v- . .SAV.TS-793
Wash!*- . ,:,.C. 20460
(202; 3c-2--y-14
-------
What steps might be taken to prevent development of a radon problem in new
homes?
A number of cost-effective steps can be taken in new home construction to
help ensure against elevated radon concentrations. Sealing basement
foundations and cinder block walls and junctures between the slab and the
walls will help prevent radon from entering into homes. Additional
information on this subject is available from EPA's Radon Reduction
Methods: A Homeowner's Guide, available from state radiation protection
offices and from EPA regional offices. In addition, EPA and the National
Association of Home Builders Research Foundation, Inc., have collaborated
on publication of Radon Reduction in New Construction: An Interim Guide.
The report (OPA-87-009, August 1987) is available from the EPA Office
of Air and Radiation in Washington, D.C
Is radon a problem in drinking water supplies, or onfy in household air?
Radon can enter water and be released into residences when faucets are
turned on or when appliances such as washers are used. Generally, radon
is less of a concern with public drinking water systems, where the radon
likely is released to outdoor air before reaching the home faucets. EPA is
working to develop a drinking water standard to set a maximum
contaminant level for radon.
52 Reporting on Radon
-------
Sources of Information
EPA Regional Offices
617/565-3231 Region 1 (Office located in Boston MA)
Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vermont
212/264-2515 Region 2 (Office located in New York NY)
New Jersey
New York
215/597-8320 Region 3 (Office located in Philadelphia PA)
Delaware
District of Columbia
Maryland
Pennsylvania
Virginia
West Virginia
404/347-3907 Region 4 (Office located in Atlanta GA)
Alabama
Florida
Georgia
Kentucky
Mississippi
North Carolina
South Carolina
312/353-2205 Region 5 (Office located in Chicago IL)
Illinois
Sources
53
-------
Indiana
Michigan
Minnesota
Ohio
Wisconsin
214/655-7208 Region 6 (Office located in Dallas TX)
Arkansas
Louisiana
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Texas
913/236-2893 Region 7 (Office located in Kansas City KS)
Iowa
Kansas
Missouri
Nebraska
303/293-1709 Region 8 (Office located in Denver CO)
Colorado
Montana
North Dakota
South Dakota
Utah
Wyoming
415/744-1530 Region 9 (Office located in San Francisco CA)
Arizona
California
Hawaii
Nevada
206/442-7660 Region 10 (Office located in Seattle WA)
-
Alaska
Idaho
Oregon
Washington
State Agencies Providing Radon Information
205/261-5315 Alabama
907/465-3019 Alaska
54
Reporting on Radon
-------
602/255-4845
501/661-2301
415/540-2134
303/331-4812
203/566-3122
302/736-4731
202/727-7728
904/488-1525
404/894-6644
808/548-4383
208/334-5927
217/786-6384
317/638-0153
515/281-7781
913/296-1560
502/564-3700
504/925-4518
207/289-3826
301/631-3300
413/586-7525
517/335-8190
612/623-5348
601/354-6657
314/751-6083
406/444-3671
402/471-2168
702/885-5394
603/271-4674
609/987-6402
505/827-2940
518/458-6450
919/733-4283
701/224-2348
614/644-2727
405/271-5221
503/229-5797
717/787-2480
809/767-3563
401/277-2438
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware (or 800/554-4636)
District of Columbia
Florida (or 800/543-8279 for
consumer inquiries onfy)
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Dlinois (or 217/786-6399
for publications)
Indiana (or 800/272-9723
in state)
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland (or 800/872-3666)
Massachusetts (or in Boston,
617/727-6214)
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri (or 800/669-7236
in state)
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey (or 800/648-
0394 in state)
New Mexico
New York (or 800/458-1158
in state)
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio (or 800/523-4439
in state)
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania (or 800/23-RADON
in state)
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
Sources
55
-------
803/734-4700
605/773-3153
615/741-4634
512/835-7000
801/538-6734
802/828-2886
804/786-5932
206/586-3303
304/348-3526
608/273-5180
3007/777-6015
South Carolina (or
803/734-4631)
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia (or 800/468-0138
in state)
Washington (or 800/323-9727
in state)
West Virginia (or 304/348-3427)
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Reporting on Radon
-------
Glossary
The field of radiation and radon have an extensive vocabulary,
complete with its own set of technicalese and jargon. This abridged glossary
includes just a few of the key terms reporters must understand to
communicate meaningfully on radon as a public health issue.
Acute Effect - An effect that becomes apparent after a one-time or brief
exposure rather than being manifested ortfy long after exposure.
Alpha Particles -- An energized particle made up of two protons and two
neutrons that is ejected from from a radioactive atom. It is
indistinguishable from a helium atom nucleus.
Beta Radiation -- A negatively charged subatomic particle (electron) emitted
from a nucleus during some types of radioactive decay.
Chronic Effect - An effect that becomes apparent only some time after
exposure, as opposed to an acute effect, which develops with a one-time or
short-term exposure.
Curie - A unit quantity of a radioactive nuclide equal to 3.7 X
disintegrations per second.
Decay Product - Radioactive materials degrade to give rise to decay
products, often referred to informally as "daughters" or "progeny." The
radon decay products of most concern from a public health standpoint are
polonium-214 and polonium-218.
Gamma Radiation - Short-wave electromagnetic radiation.
Half-Life - The time required for half the atoms of a radioactive substance
present at the beginning to be disintegrated. For instance, beginning with
100 units, there would be 50 units not disintegrated at the end of the first
half-life, 25 at the end of the second, and so forth.
Indoor Radon Abatement Act - Passed in 1988 as Title HI of the Toxic
Substances Control Act, this law establishes as a national goal - but not as
a requirement - that air within buildings "should be as free of radon as the
ambient air outside of buildings." The law mandates development of model
construction codes for controlling radon in new buildings; directs EPA to
Glossary 57
-------
help states establish a radon information clearinghouse and provide states
technical assistance; and authorizes $10 million annually for grants to states
to develop and initiate radon assessment and mitigation programs. In
addition, the law directs EPA to study radon contamination in schools,
provide grants to colleges to establish radon training centers, and report to
Congress by October 1, 1990, on radon in federal buildings.
Picocurie - A curie is a standard measurement for radioactivity, specifically
the rate of decay for a gram of radium -- 37 billion decays per second. A
picocurie (pCi) is one millionth of one-millionth of a curie.
Polonium -- A radioactive metallic element that occurs in pitchblende and
other uranium-containing ores.
Radium -- A highly radioactive white shining element found in pitchblende,
carnotite, and other uranium-containing minerals. It emits alpha particles
and gamma rays to form radon.
Radon -- An odorless, tasteless and invisible radioactive gas which occurs
naturally in rocks and soils as a breakdown product of uranium. It is found
in high concentrations in soils and rocks containing uranium, granite, shale,
phosphate, and pitchblende, but it also is found in soils contaminated with
certain industrial wastes (those from uranium or phosphate mining) and in
underground water supplies.
Reading Prong - A geographical area stretching throughout Pennsylvania,
New Jersey, and New York known to have a high number of homes with
high radon concentrations.
Working Level - A working level, derived from safety and health regulations
covering mining, is a measurement of radon decay products, rather than of
radon itself. Roughly, one picocurie per liter of radon gas is the same as
0.005 working levels. So one working level (WL) is equal to about 200
picocuries of radon gas. The term itself generally is used less often than
picocuries as a unit of measure.
58 Reporting on Radon
-------
Established in 1988, the Environmental Health Center (EHC), a
division of the National Safety Council, operates as a not-for-profit,
nongovernmental public service organization. In this capacity, the EHC is
charged with helping diverse sectors of society better focus limited resources
on the numerous environmental challenges which pose significant risk to the
health and safety of its people and, therefore, to society overall.
The Environmental Health Center, through its projects and activities,
strives to promote a broader understanding of complex environmental
issues. The Center takes no "sides," except to support sound and workable
environmental policies. Working with a broad range of public and private
sector organizations, print and electronic media, citizen interest groups, and
academic organizations, the Center assists in developing and implementing
policies aimed at recognized public health risks.
The National Safety Council's EHC fosters improved communications
not only among those professionally engaged in environmental protection
and resource management, but also -- and most importantly -- among the
public at large.
National
Safety
Council
------- |