Radon Gas in valuation - What the hell does this mean?

Kez100

About 12 years ago we were all sent radon detectors free by the Government. (I'm in Cornwall BTW) At the time I was expecting my daughter so we put one in what was to be her nursery and the other downstairs in the lounge. After a set time we had to send them back for testing and our result was fine.

Again I don't recall exact details but had an idea it was to do with granite, in which case as Dartmoor is a lump of granite it comes as no surprise it's mentioned! I wouldn't stress (I'd rather live on granite than an old mine shaft!) but I would ask questions - did anyone at the property do the tests circa 12 years ago?

We were led to believe at the time that if we had a problem a sump (?) could be put in and it wasn't a terribly high cost as far as I recall.

It is a common - if not automatic - question for down here, as is mundic block construction.

Need_More_Money_2

As others have said it relates to the higher rates of Radon Gas in some parts of the country, particulary Devon/Cornwall. Radon is radioactive so the natural background radiation levels are higher than average in that part of the country. Other parts of the country also have higher than average natural background radiation.

I wouldn't be concerned about it if I was you. Advice that it is a problem is based on the assumption that all radiation is bad for you and causes cancer. This comes from some very dodgy science.

Evidence actually shows that areas with higher background radiation levels (e.g. from radon) actually have LOWER rates of cancer.

Prof. John Cameron (who was Professor of Medical Physics) said:


[FONT=Times New Roman,Times][SIZE=+2]Areas with high natural background have less cancer[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times][SIZE=+1]Humans receive ionizing radiation from several natural sources - radioactivity inside their body, radioactivity outside their body and cosmic rays. The amount of radiation from these various sources varies with the geographical location and the material used in the buildings where you work and live. In addition, the contribution from radon varies depending on the construction of your home and the amount of uranium in the soil beneath it.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times][SIZE=+1]If ionizing radiation is a significant cause of cancer we would expect the millions of people who live in areas with high natural levels of radiation to have more cancer. However, that is not the case. The seven western U.S. states with the highest background radiation - about twice the average for the country (excluding radon contributions) - have 15% lower cancer death rate than the average for the country.11[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times][SIZE=+2]Radon in mines increases lung cancer; radon in[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times][SIZE=+2]homes reduces lung cancer[/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman,Times][SIZE=+1]Uranium miners had a higher incidence of lung cancer from the high concentrations of radon in underground mines. This was the basis for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to estimate that high levels of radon in homes cause thousands of lung cancer deaths each year in the U.S. However, a study of lung cancer death rates in 1600 U.S. counties representing over 90% of the U.S. population shows that counties with the highest radon levels (> 5 pCi/l) have 40% lower lung cancer death rates than the counties with lowest radon levels (< 0.05 pCi/l).12 It appears that radiation from radon progeny actually prevents some cancers caused by smoking![/SIZE][/FONT]

See following web sites for more information:
http://www.!!!!!!.com/mo/radioadaptive/jcameron1.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/sardi/sardi26.html

(these are backed by peer reviewed references in reasonable scientific journals

guppy

Mrs_Pepperpot wrote: »

Thanks for all links, comments etc...

1000 people a year in uk do die of radon related cancer a year it seems but evidence suggests that the risk in non smokers is low.

Just to put that in perspective, 3,201 people died on the roads in 2005.

The survey (the only one to find a link) also says:

"On average, four lifelong non-smokers in every 1000 would develop lung cancer in the absence of radon, rising to seven in 1000 in the presence of radon at a concentration of 400 Bq/m3.

In contrast, 100 in 1000 cigarette smokers would get lung cancer in the absence of radon, rising to 160 in 1000 at 400 Bq/m3 of radon."

Which doesn't really make me feel better, because all though there is no Radon here and I don't smoke, I might still get lung cancer anyway :shocked:

Cheers for posting it by the way, adr0ck