Dropping at the root since some threads are talking about radon and whether it’s based on region.
This is the EPA map for radon risks (zones) in the US:
https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2024-05/radon-zon...
Many lung cancers are now in nonsmokers
151–160 of 361 posts
Re: Many lung cancers are now in nonsmokers
#152Earlier quoted context omitted.
It varies by the amount of uranium underneath you. So yes, by country/state/province/etc.
Australia has the largest uranium reserves, but I've never heard radon mentioned here as a concern, so I assume it just comes down to the reserves being very specifically located.
I guess it's not much of a concern in Australia, I guess.
https://www.arpansa.gov.au/understanding-radiation/radiation...
>In 1990, ARPANSA conducted a nationwide survey of more than 3300 Australian homes to determine the radiation dose to the Australian population from exposure to natural background radiation, including radon. Based on this survey, the average concentration of radon in Australian homes is about 10 Bq m⁻³. This is less than in many other countries and compares to a global average indoor value of 40 Bq m⁻³. Average radon levels in Australian homes are only a little larger than the radon levels in outside air and are of minimal concern to health.
Re: Many lung cancers are now in nonsmokers
#153Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's honestly such awakening experience to see videos or visit these "poor" low GDP, stagnant economy countries and see their streets are full of happy, healthy people out walking, talking with each other. Kids out playing on the street, old people dancing in the parks. And then see our rich cities where everyone sits in traffic scoffing McDonalds raging out at other people doing the same. Huffing in diesel exhaust a…
Eh, visit a big city in India for a third view.
Have to wonder what happened differently between countries like China, Japan, and India. I'm not an expert but yeah there is something more to it. Better managed government perhaps?
Re: Many lung cancers are now in nonsmokers
#154Earlier quoted context omitted.
It varies by the amount of uranium underneath you. So yes, by country/state/province/etc.
Australia has the largest uranium reserves, but I've never heard radon mentioned here as a concern, so I assume it just comes down to the reserves being very specifically located.
It's a concern for miners, but not normal homes. Also radon often concentrates in basements, and you don't have those.
Re: Many lung cancers are now in nonsmokers
#155Earlier quoted context omitted.
The EPA recommends home owners mitigate with radon levels of 4 pCi/L and above, and the EPA recommends home owners mitigate ”consider” mitigation at levels 2-4. Often you will see people post radon results in the 10+ or even 50+ range, which may lead you to think 4 pCi/L is not too bad, but in fact exposure to that level is the equivalent of 8 cigarettes a day or 200 chest X-rays/year.
Given the average level of radon in the air outdoors is 10% of that, being outdoors is 20 chest x-rays per year, eh? That’s almost a cigarette per day being outdoors! https://www.epa.gov/radon/what-epas-action-level-radon-and-w... The EPA doesn’t make such creative claims. But the sites that do will also conveniently sell you stuff. https://radonbegone.com/what-does-your-radon-number-mean/ https://www.nationalradonde…
The indoor level of radon isn't going to be lower than outdoors. Indoors is either the same or higher than outdoors. Your level of exposure to radon will not go up by going outside. That's your background exposure level, and is already baked into the calculation of how much an effect an elevated exposure to radon in your home will have on you. Radon is a serious thing to consider, especially if your home has a basement. Radon mitigation is not a scam conspiracy.
Re: Many lung cancers are now in nonsmokers
#156Earlier quoted context omitted.
The difficult thing for me is that while I believe radon can cause lung cancer, I think products are often sold based on fear. “Second leading cause” doesn’t really mean anything in isolation, does it? What slice of my mortality pie was radon before and after spending $5000? Could I spend $5000 to cut a bigger slice out of it in another way, like eating better or hiring a grizzly bear to make me exercise more often?…
I'm with you on wanting to quantify. https://www.epa.gov/radon/health-risk-radon Scroll down to "Radon Risk If You Have Never Smoked". Looks pretty worthwhile to take it from "very high" to "almost nil". If "very high" was in the range of the 2nd highest level listed here, that's 2% chance. That's for lifetime exposure but there's also multiple people living in the house. If you DO smoke, the numbers look VERY good f…
That’s exactly the kind of information I was seeking! If your results come back at some ridiculous level, it could make complete sense.
But if your results come back much closer to normal background levels, there’s not much you can do. Even the EPA says it’s difficult to get it below 2.
Meanwhile, lots of websites out there try to scare you into buying remediation for low values (see comment below).
It’s the perfect bogeyman. Radon. Cancer. Invisible silent killer. And I think it’s demonstrated by the vibe-based “seems like a good idea” conclusions in these comments.
Re: Many lung cancers are now in nonsmokers
#157I'm not sure why this isn't recognized as a great success.
Once a large enough portion of the population were no longer smokers, it was inevitable that many lung cancers would be in smokers. What is important in all of this is not "large sounding numbers" of people, but the percentage of the population, as a whole, who suffer from lung cancer. And a further confounding factor life expectancy today vs even 30 years ago (the longer one lives, the more likely it is for cancer of any kind to develop).
Re: Many lung cancers are now in nonsmokers
#158This challenges our previous understanding of lung cancer risks, since we’ve always thought it mostly affected smokers. I’m curious how much is due to environmental pollution or other exposures, and how much is genetic. Hopefully, this will push for more research and better screening methods for everyone.
Not necessarily. Smoking has become less prevalent.
So while before, most lung cancer victims were smokers, we’re at the point where overall risk in the general population causes higher numbers than specific risk in smokers.
Because while most lung cancer victims were smokers, most smokers never got lung cancer.
Re: Many lung cancers are now in nonsmokers
#159The second leading cause of lung cancer is radon. My high schooler came home and said her science teacher said everyone should do a radon test. I scoffed, but humored her by getting a kit from Home Depot and sending it away to a lab. The results came back very high. So I purchased an electronic radon monitor and it showed almost the exact same results. Well, crap. I installed a radon mitigation system and now the num…
I am super uneducated on this, but I thought radon was only a concern for people with brick homes or basements?
I have a brick house and a basement, and I have no radon mitigation system, and I live in an area where radon is generally a concern (southeast Michigan.)
Over the last couple years I've had some AirThings sensors collecting data. Last month:
- The one-day average radon concentration detected by the basement sensor crossed over 3 pCi/L once... for a very brief period. Around 80% of the time, the one-day average radon concentration detected by the basement sensor was below 2 pCi/L.
- The one-day average radon concentration detected by the main floor sensor never reached 3 pCi/L and was rarely above 2 pCi/L.
In fact, since January, the main floor sensor has still never reached 3 pCi/L even once, or really gotten all that close. The basement sensor, on the other hand, has reached 4 pCi/L three times this year, with a peak at 5.1 pCi/L for a brief period in May.
I hardly ever check this data, but it is nice to have it. I guess it would probably be wise to double check some other way to make sure that the AirThings sensors are outputting good information, but I have little reason to doubt it.
As long as I'm interpreting the data right, though, it suggests that despite having some of the worst case scenarios for my house, actually it's fine. So I guess it really does depend mostly on the land you're built on. (That, and, you should probably just check instead of guessing.)
Re: Many lung cancers are now in nonsmokers
#160I can think of a few hypothesis, but I’d hit all the reasons we already know that people in their 30s are getting cancer first, like:
Natural gas burning inside with poor ventilation (solve by pushing electric everything, paid for by carbon tax paid by big oil)
ICE car exhaust (solve with EVs, subsidised by carbon tax paid by big oil)
Second hand smoke (ban smoking in public and within XX distance of a child, and make support for parents to quit free from cigarette taxes)
Microplastics in the water and the air including tyre dust (start regulating this/coming up with a long term plan to reduce it and filter it out, and put a government subsidy on certified and professionally installed under sink microplastic water filter products… paid for by those who put the plastic there in the first place)
Poor indoor air quality/high VOX (mandate air flow minimum levels for all new builds and make extraction fans for offices a normal requirement, and give tenants something to lobby against their body corporate to improve airflow in uselessly designed buildings since “sick building syndrome” is real but often impossible to know before you sign the papers)