EPA Damage by Innuendo from Radon

Chemical and Engineering News has a page entitled, "Government and Policy Insights" (August 22, 2011 edition). On that page, David Hanson presents his views on the subject "Living With Radon". In that article, he says that we have not made any progress in the past 25 years on reducing the amount of cancer caused by radon exposure or in reducing the number of houses that need radon levels reduced. He also says "The handling of radon as a public health risk by EPA over the past 25 years has been long on talk but short on results".

Hanson quotes EPA as having said that radon killed 20,000 people per year 25 years ago and is now killing 21,000 people per year. First, let's put that in perspective. In 2003, 556,902 people died of cancer in the USA ( http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/37480.php). The number attributed to radon is 3.8%. We also need to ask how the EPA knows there were 20,000 deaths attributed to radon 25 years ago. Is there something special about a radon death that distinguishes it from any other cancer death? We also need to ask why we should be particularly concerned about radon which is said to contribute less than 4% to the cancer problem.

I've just finished reading a book on Radioactivity by Marjorie Caroline Malley. She says that history shows high levels of radioactivity can cause cancer, but low levels of radioactivity can be beneficial to health. We also know about the development of nuclear medicine, which involves using radioactive substances to control cancer in specifically targeted organs. A case in point is a preclinical study presented at the Society of Nuclear Medicine 56th Annual Meeting suggesting that alpha-therapy, in association with fast-clearing peptides, can be effective in treating prostate cancer (http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/704765). By the way, radon is a radioactive gas, which emits alpha particles; the same particles that are referred to in the reference article.

The above would lead us to believe that radon may not be the bugaboo, which EPA and Hanson have suggested. We don't need more controls based on ignorance, but I do propose that there could be some additional research to determine the reality of radon's dangers.

We now need to revert to an ancillary topic which is more important than radon itself. That is, environmental regulations.

In spite of the fact that EPA has not to my knowledge regulated radon concentration in homes, their incomplete work and subsequent statements have developed a fear, in the mind of the public, concerning another mysterious quantity. It has also led to the development of new businesses in radon sampling, laboratory testing, and construction controls. Obviously the development of new businesses is an advantage, but there is a caveat. The development of any new business, which is based upon ignorance, lack of practicality or with the possibility of no benefit to the buyer, is effectively a scam.

15 years ago I sold my home in Rydal, Pennsylvania. At that time, the EPA had already spread its fear propaganda concerning radon, which was then bought by "believers" and likely others who saw an opportunity for profit (scam). The real estate agent, which was part of a monopolistic group of real estate agencies, insisted that I had to have a radon test, which I did. The air sampling laboratory found "high" levels of radon in my dining room and lower levels of radon in the basement. It should be noted that radon is a heavier than air gas and would normally settle to the lowest level, which would be the basement. In spite of this inconsistency and lack of any federal regulations on radon concentration, I was forced to install radon remediation in the home before I could sell it. This obviously increased the cost of the property without increasing its value. By the way, we lived in the house 20 years. I am 90 years old and my wife is 88. Neither of us nor any of our children have cancer

In my case, the EPA did damage to my attempts to sell my home, even without having established a "regulation". There is little doubt that this has occurred many times with other private individuals and massively on a business scale.

It has been previously suggested to me rather than just complain about obvious wrongdoing, I should also make a constructive suggestion. I believe I have done that in most cases. In this case, I suggest Congress significantly reduce funding of the EPA. The reason for this is to reduce the size of the agency so that they will spend their time on more productive problems, rather than develop partial information leading to detriment in our society.