Has there ever been a study actually comparing similar residences, half in radon producing areas and half in radon free areas. And in the first set, comparing actual levels of radon to the incidence of lung cancer and compared to the group with no radon. I cannot find such a study.
Myths of radon is a 4 part series. This is done by a nuclear physicist. What you will learn is the radon EPA residential limit of 4 parts per billion. If you are work then the limit is 100. A banana has more gamma rays than the EPA limit. Further more the “tools” they use to measure the radon limit in your home isn’t actually measuring radon, but a pseudo method to come up a number. My dollar says this speaker is heavily invested in the Radom mitigation industry since he is advertising for a particular business. Keep in mind the radon industry is a very rapidly growing 100 Billion plus industry that is not interested in the facts, but how’s to spin the facts into dollars.
Hmmm the trouble with the Internet is it makes our lack of knowledge visible. Is Radon harmless as presented in 'Myths of Radon' or as harmful as presented in this video. I suspect as usual the truth is somewhere in between. Being that homes are built much tighter today it's not surprising to see higher Radon levels.
Homes in areas with high levels of radons require a system to meet code. Minnesota was 2009 and newer. I've heard and seen studies that areas with high levels of radon do not have higher levels or lung cancer in nonsmokers.
The answer to what we are doing wrong is what we are doing right. Go into a house's basement that was built in the 1890s and one build in the 2000s after a rain storm. On average the latter has no water in it. Drainage moves water away from the structure and radon uses it to enter.
Alpha particles "dent" bullet-proof plastic? Unsure of the testing method, but the molecules in an inch or so of empty air will stop Alpha radiation, as will your skin or a sheet of paper.
Do not confuse kinetic energy with particle size. Alpha particles can be stopped by paper because they are a helium nucleus. They are huge when you compare them to a beta particle(an electron or positron) or a gamma ray (photon of light). They are huge so they cannot pass between molecules and other atoms (easily) but because they have a lot of mass, cannot pass through things easily because they are huge and because they are high energy. They absolutely do leave impact craters on soft objects like perspex. The alpha particle is the wrecking ball of the atomic world. Want to know how powerful alpha particles are? Order a small piece of beryllium metal off of ebay, foil is fine. Then take a wet paper tower and wipe up some dust in your house. Fold the paper towel up, lay it on the beryllium and put it into a plastic baggie. You now have a neutron source. The alpha particles that come off of the decay products in that dust impact the surface of beryllium and produce neutrons. That lowly alpha particle which you said cannot do much at all, has enough power to convert beryllium to carbon-12 and liberate a neutron and a gamma ray.
@@StreuB1 Not clear what your explanation has to do with the original point made by MNPD3. Alpha particles are "dangerous" not because of their size or their kinetic energy, BUT as regards their kinetic energy they can't do the damage that Goodarzi says they do simply being emitted from a radioactive parent nucleus. MNPD3 is correct, paper will stop an alpha particle, so alpha particles "denting" things is a bit out there, and caused me to cut this Goodarzi off - where he gets alpha particles denting anything is a mystery to me. The "Danger" of an alpha particle is that it is a helium atom minus two electrons, and given how desirous He would be to get those two missing electrons (this has to do with the phenomenal stability of the He atom itself - it's pretty much the most stable element in the Periodic Table, but that's with two electrons, so without two electrons it'd pretty much be a raging atomic bull on a mission to get those two missing electrons) it would steal them from ANYTHING that would lose them, which is in turn going to ionize (give a positive or negative change to) things that normally wouldn't be ionized and that normally we wouldn't want ionized. So an alpha particle emitter embedded in your lungs, or anywhere else in your body, vastly increases the chances that such ionization will induce mutations, in turn vastly increasing the chances of cancer.
@@StreuB1 yes totally agree which is why when it gets in the body an alpha source is way worse than gamma or beta as the distance to the target (our dna) is small
To get enough exposure at the levels that would have an effect on your body ‘ you’ need to be underground miner that smokes cigarettes, that is according to EPA cited studies. Please look it up
@@fredrubin9778 radon mitigators are normally mechanical/plumbing companies and no they aren’t making off like bandits. It’s called risk, if you deem the risk worth it than don’t test or mitigate radon. If you feel like it’s worth a couple grand then get it done, or do it yourself and save money. Not a big deal
Dear everyone who thinks this is a scam/racket/over-exaggeration of the facts, I am a humble student of radiation physics and I see a lot of comments making fun of this guy. Coming to the point, one cannot bring down radon levels to zero as it's geogenic and almost ubiquitously present on our earth's crust. It isn't wise to say that it may be a racket or something. Radon-or for that matter any radioactive element with a short half-life (like radon) is highly dangerous and exposure at any level can cause some damage to the DNA (p53 gene). We call this as "Linear No Threshold model" meaning at no levels radiation is safe. Therefore the 2 pCi or 4 pCi levels are always referred to as "RECOMMENDED LEVELS" and never "SAFE LEVELS"-because they ain't. Thank you.
LOL oh okay, care to share a controlled study on low level concentrations of radon found in the home that linked it to lung cancer? You do realize that miners working in underground mines were exposed to concentrations of radon that are tens of millions of times greater than the radon levels you mention as "recommended levels". Those "recommended levels" were established by the EPA using junk science.
In Sweden we have a similar limit of 200 Bq/m3 and a national average of 105 Bq/m3. My own apartment has 150 Bq/m3 and according to the radiation safety authorities, radon causes 500 deaths every year. For comparision, traffic deaths is around 350 per year yet radon is largely unknown by the general public. Many buildings were constructed between 1920-1980 using uranium-rich lightweight concrete, most of which are still in use. Last year our elected officials decied to not lower the limit to WHO:s recommended 100 Bq/m3 levels, based on cost. It was considered more cost-effective to let the buildings stand and let people fall pray to cancer. And they call me cynical...
@@dudeyo8428 umm,,even krypton is Nobel gas, yet have a radioactive isotope. Noble gases do not react with other chemical elements, with exception of Xe, but doesn't mean they can't be radioactive either. Radioactivity and chemical inertness are two very different thing!
What levels of radon are dangerous, do you know ? Look up the studies that EPA cites for recommendations. All recommendations are based on guesswork citing data from underground mining workers exposure levels.
@@ThatGuy-kz3fx no argument that decaying radon particles not healthy. The question is how much of it we’re exposed at home? Answer: miserable amount that has no effect. Otherwise, everybody in my town would be dying of lung cancer. Unfortunately still, more people dying in car accidents.
Something isn't adding up. Radon exposure is inreasing because newer housing is more insulated, thus concentrating the gas more. Yet lung cancer is declining.
...or we could actually research why this is all a bunch of fear mongering BS & tell our politicians to stop making laws for such & settle for warnings encouraging people to do their own research into it.
With all the toxic waste legally and illegally dumped everywhere, including down empty mine shafts, it has to go somewhere as it degrades. Don't forget all the bombs they tested underground. Just think of all the cracks that connect to each other and to caverns inside the earth.
I usually go with mainstream science, but radon is one place I need to pause. If radon truly was so dangerous, why do people quite literally not give a rats behind about radon for the years and decades they live in a house, only when they want to buy/sell do they care. We do so much to make roads safer, and drugs safer, but nobody puts a second thought about radon? Why? Why no ad campaigns to get people to test their homes to save lives?
@@jamiegarcia6060 There isn't a single controlled study on exposure to radon at concentrations found in American homes. Even the EPA admitted that they don't have any actual data for it. They used "guesswork" and incomplete data from miners working in underground mines that were exposed to levels of radon that were magnitudes higher than even the highest levels of radon found in a house. There are a thousand other things that you will be exposed to every day that are more likely to cause cancer than radon in your basement. Mold in your basement is a bigger health threat than the minuscule amounts of radon that might be there. It's an amazing moneymaking scam for the "radon mitigation" industry though. Terrify people about an invisible radioactive gas and tell people they're going to get lung cancer because their fake "radon detector" gave a "bad" number. Con artists installing $100 worth of PVC piping and a cheap fan and raking in thousands of dollars for it. What a great scam.
The thing is, the public isn't as smart as you give it credit for. People are generally idiots, (whether we admit it or not) and because it's invisible. If it's invisible, it's a lot harder to make people actually care.
... great sales pitch... but I've heard that the average American household can't drop their Radon levels below 2 Pci... or whatever the measurement is. Folks.. I'm starting to think this might be a racket...
Doc Stoddard as a real estate agent I deal with this all the time. Actual,y I just got an inspection back that is 19.2 in basement. So now I have to figure this out for my clients.
Real estate agent here, in Portland, a fairly high radon area. Lots of homes start off below 2 pC/L, and after remediation I've never seen one above 1.0
Dear Stoddard, One cannot bring down radon levels to zero as it's geogenic and almost ubiquitously present on our earth's crust. It isn't wise to say that it may be a racket or something. Radon-or for that matter any radioactive element with a short half-life (like radon) is highly dangerous and exposure at any level can cause some damage to the DNA (p53 gene). We call this as "Linear No Threshold model" meaning at no levels radiation are safe. Therefre tthe 2 pCi or 4 pCi levels are always referred to as "RECOMMENDED LEVELS" and never "SAFE LEVELS"-because they ain't. Thank you.
This is what’s known as over-selling. I’m quite sure there are hundreds, potentially four, five, even six figures of words, grunts & motivations to depict what this guy is actually doing on the TED stage.
What does he mean by sensitive to radon? Can some people sense it or are some people immune to it compared to the sensitive type? Any more info on this?
izzzzzz6 Currently learning about radon in school. In my book it states smokers are more sensitive to radon exposure. The risk of lung cancer from radon exposure is estimated at between 10 to 20 times greater for persons who smoke cigarettes as compared with those who have never smoked. I didn’t explain why.
@@jamiegarcia6060 I was just commenting about hypersensitivity on another video about mould exposure. A youtuber claimed that mould exposure would never be a health risk but all of this seemed to be based on statistics yet some people are hypersensitive such as pollen sufferers, and they are usually too few in numbers to be counted by all statistics. I believe that too much exposure to certain toxins can bring about hypersensitivity. So possibly by weakening and blasting their lungs with cigarette smoke they have perhaps not so much created hypersensitivity as such but more that they have weakened / semi destroyed their lungs already. In this case it might be more due to a build up of destruction rather than a build up of toxins.
izzzzzz6 Yea that’s correct. Thanks for that feedback! I asked my professor to explain more and she basically said that cigarettes have carcinogens. Making smokers even more sensitive to the radon, which also has carcinogens
@@jamiegarcia6060 Sounds like hypersensitivity built up by too many toxins. Cigarettes give off smoke which is regarded as a carcinogen as far as i'm aware. I heard once that they were farming some tobacco in certain areas where the dust was radioactive and that it could become stuck on the leaves further increasing the risk to smokers. Not sure if thats true or not.
They use radiation to blast cancerous cells to death. Unfortunately it’s not that effective because radiation is extremely harmful for the human body and kills everything in sight. Current numbers are around 50% of Americans will die with cancer so the “treatment” we use isn’t working.
Radon itself is not used to treat cancer, at least not in developed countries. Targeted radiation is completely different and controlled. Radon gas is absolutely not used.
@@doctorkyle2985 Radiation is all around us all the of the time. Bananas are radioactive yet nobody hesitates to eat bananas. Every time you fly on a plane you are exposed to significant amounts of radiation. There has never been a controlled study on the link between lung cancer and radon exposure at the tiny concentrations in the home. The EPA's standards are based on junk science and "guesswork" using incomplete data on radon exposure to underground miners at concentrations that were several magnitudes greater than you would ever find in a US home. The hysteria over radon in the home is based on psuedoscience used by con artists that make a lot of money off of installing 'radon mitigation' systems that are grossly profitable.
Ive heard people who live in areas with radon actually have longer lives lol. The small amount of radiation makes your body stronger and more resilient
Radiation is never good for the body. The effect you are referring to is known as hormesis. We can also do this through exercise, sauna, heat, plants, etc. I’d pick one of those of radioactive material :)
In no way can ionizing radiation or alpha particles possibly be good for you in any way. Literally ripping apart your DNA harder than it can heal itself is generally a bad idea. Unless you are looking to literally kill the cells in your body and cause cancer.
I agree with David Brokaw... for real science with real data from the real world from a genuine scientist watch “The Myths of Radon”. No glittering generalities there.
Certainly a great talk. ...if 'simple' fear mongering is the goal, ya. Those of us doing actual research on the topic have found this is SUCH a bunch of over-hyped misinformation. ...or at least it would be if it wasn't sapping people's hard-earned resources. :/
And it's all built on psuedoscience from our own EPA. There isn't a single controlled study on exposure to low concentrations of radon found in the home and lung cancer. It's all based on the EPA's junk science in an analysis from 1989 using data from miners working in underground mines where radon concentrations were several magnitudes greater than the radon levels found in the home. The took that data and used "guesswork" to come up with a standard for radon exposure in the home at tiny concentrations.
You can find any answer that you want if you are an anti vaxxer , a conspiracy theorist or a flat earther! Get out of your echo chamber... do your own research if you are concerned. I came to the conclusion that Aaron Goodarizi, PhD at the University of Calgary is bang on.
@@pthomas1054 HAHAHA so despite the indisputable fact that there isn't a single controlled study that has ever linked radon at those tiny concentrations to lung cancer, anyone that doesn't buy into this junk science is a "flat earther" and a "conspiracy theorist". This guy doesn't have any actual controlled study to back up the claims he makes. It's all based on the same EPA junk science from the 80's that used lung cancer rates of underground miners exposed to radon levels that were 80,000,000 pCi/l or greater, and used "guesswork" as the EPA itself called it to come up with a linear model that established that 2 pCi/l is the "recommended" level in a home. That's not how science works and you are clearly the mouth breathing flat-earther conspiracy theorist if there was one.
I'm pretty sure everything presented was factual as it's the same data I've read elsewhere. Additionally, as the purpose of the lecture was to inform and raise awareness it seems it was imminently successful.
"It is very easy fixable just continue giving me lots of research grants. My con-artist friends would really appreciate it if we just establish building codes that force everyone to install worthless radon mitigation units into all residential structures."
Has there ever been a study actually comparing similar residences, half in radon producing areas and half in radon free areas. And in the first set, comparing actual levels of radon to the incidence of lung cancer and compared to the group with no radon. I cannot find such a study.
Me either. I believe they only monitored minors in the mountains.
Myths of radon is a 4 part series. This is done by a nuclear physicist. What you will learn is the radon EPA residential limit of 4 parts per billion. If you are work then the limit is 100. A banana has more gamma rays than the EPA limit.
Further more the “tools” they use to measure the radon limit in your home isn’t actually measuring radon, but a pseudo method to come up a number.
My dollar says this speaker is heavily invested in the Radom mitigation industry since he is advertising for a particular business. Keep in mind the radon industry is a very rapidly growing 100 Billion plus industry that is not interested in the facts, but how’s to spin the facts into dollars.
yup....
That makes a lot of sense.
What is the research paper/project used to determine the level of radon that is a risk for lung cancer?
EPA 402-R-03-003 It’s laughable.
Hmmm the trouble with the Internet is it makes our lack of knowledge visible. Is Radon harmless as presented in 'Myths of Radon' or as harmful as presented in this video. I suspect as usual the truth is somewhere in between. Being that homes are built much tighter today it's not surprising to see higher Radon levels.
I couldn't agree more.
Homes in areas with high levels of radons require a system to meet code. Minnesota was 2009 and newer. I've heard and seen studies that areas with high levels of radon do not have higher levels or lung cancer in nonsmokers.
The answer to what we are doing wrong is what we are doing right. Go into a house's basement that was built in the 1890s and one build in the 2000s after a rain storm. On average the latter has no water in it. Drainage moves water away from the structure and radon uses it to enter.
So we sacrifice mold for radon? Which is the lesser of two evils? Lol
Alpha particles "dent" bullet-proof plastic? Unsure of the testing method, but the molecules in an inch or so of empty air will stop Alpha radiation, as will your skin or a sheet of paper.
Do not confuse kinetic energy with particle size. Alpha particles can be stopped by paper because they are a helium nucleus. They are huge when you compare them to a beta particle(an electron or positron) or a gamma ray (photon of light). They are huge so they cannot pass between molecules and other atoms (easily) but because they have a lot of mass, cannot pass through things easily because they are huge and because they are high energy. They absolutely do leave impact craters on soft objects like perspex. The alpha particle is the wrecking ball of the atomic world. Want to know how powerful alpha particles are? Order a small piece of beryllium metal off of ebay, foil is fine. Then take a wet paper tower and wipe up some dust in your house. Fold the paper towel up, lay it on the beryllium and put it into a plastic baggie. You now have a neutron source. The alpha particles that come off of the decay products in that dust impact the surface of beryllium and produce neutrons. That lowly alpha particle which you said cannot do much at all, has enough power to convert beryllium to carbon-12 and liberate a neutron and a gamma ray.
It's dangerous to breathe in- you weren't really thinking this one through.
@@StreuB1 Dear Brian, I thank you for your wonderful explanation. I am truly indebted.
@@StreuB1 Not clear what your explanation has to do with the original point made by MNPD3. Alpha particles are "dangerous" not because of their size or their kinetic energy, BUT as regards their kinetic energy they can't do the damage that Goodarzi says they do simply being emitted from a radioactive parent nucleus. MNPD3 is correct, paper will stop an alpha particle, so alpha particles "denting" things is a bit out there, and caused me to cut this Goodarzi off - where he gets alpha particles denting anything is a mystery to me. The "Danger" of an alpha particle is that it is a helium atom minus two electrons, and given how desirous He would be to get those two missing electrons (this has to do with the phenomenal stability of the He atom itself - it's pretty much the most stable element in the Periodic Table, but that's with two electrons, so without two electrons it'd pretty much be a raging atomic bull on a mission to get those two missing electrons) it would steal them from ANYTHING that would lose them, which is in turn going to ionize (give a positive or negative change to) things that normally wouldn't be ionized and that normally we wouldn't want ionized. So an alpha particle emitter embedded in your lungs, or anywhere else in your body, vastly increases the chances that such ionization will induce mutations, in turn vastly increasing the chances of cancer.
@@StreuB1 yes totally agree which is why when it gets in the body an alpha source is way worse than gamma or beta as the distance to the target (our dna) is small
To get enough exposure at the levels that would have an effect on your body ‘ you’ need to be underground miner that smokes cigarettes, that is according to EPA cited studies. Please look it up
Where can I look that up? Curious because of some of the levels I have.
There is a fortune being made by radin mitigators and lobbyists!
@@fredrubin9778 radon mitigators are normally mechanical/plumbing companies and no they aren’t making off like bandits.
It’s called risk, if you deem the risk worth it than don’t test or mitigate radon. If you feel like it’s worth a couple grand then get it done, or do it yourself and save money. Not a big deal
Dear everyone who thinks this is a scam/racket/over-exaggeration of the facts, I am a humble student of radiation physics and I see a lot of comments making fun of this guy. Coming to the point, one cannot bring down radon levels to zero as it's geogenic and almost ubiquitously present on our earth's crust. It isn't wise to say that it may be a racket or something. Radon-or for that matter any radioactive element with a short half-life (like radon) is highly dangerous and exposure at any level can cause some damage to the DNA (p53 gene). We call this as "Linear No Threshold model" meaning at no levels radiation is safe. Therefore the 2 pCi or 4 pCi levels are always referred to as "RECOMMENDED LEVELS" and never "SAFE LEVELS"-because they ain't. Thank you.
Oh🧐. That’s different.😐🚧
do you even know how they came up with the 4pci number lol.
LOL oh okay, care to share a controlled study on low level concentrations of radon found in the home that linked it to lung cancer? You do realize that miners working in underground mines were exposed to concentrations of radon that are tens of millions of times greater than the radon levels you mention as "recommended levels". Those "recommended levels" were established by the EPA using junk science.
@@OMERDULIdo you?
In Sweden we have a similar limit of 200 Bq/m3 and a national average of 105 Bq/m3. My own apartment has 150 Bq/m3 and according to the radiation safety authorities, radon causes 500 deaths every year. For comparision, traffic deaths is around 350 per year yet radon is largely unknown by the general public. Many buildings were constructed between 1920-1980 using uranium-rich lightweight concrete, most of which are still in use. Last year our elected officials decied to not lower the limit to WHO:s recommended 100 Bq/m3 levels, based on cost. It was considered more cost-effective to let the buildings stand and let people fall pray to cancer. And they call me cynical...
xarragon It' sickening!
I'll sell you a remediation kit. Since you don't understand that radon is a noble gas.
@@dudeyo8428 umm,,even krypton is Nobel gas, yet have a radioactive isotope. Noble gases do not react with other chemical elements, with exception of Xe, but doesn't mean they can't be radioactive either. Radioactivity and chemical inertness are two very different thing!
What levels of radon are dangerous, do you know ? Look up the studies that EPA cites for recommendations. All recommendations are based on guesswork citing data from underground mining workers exposure levels.
@@ThatGuy-kz3fx no argument that decaying radon particles not healthy. The question is how much of it we’re exposed at home? Answer: miserable amount that has no effect. Otherwise, everybody in my town would be dying of lung cancer. Unfortunately still, more people dying in car accidents.
Something isn't adding up. Radon exposure is inreasing because newer housing is more insulated, thus concentrating the gas more. Yet lung cancer is declining.
Radon by itself isn’t that bad but what it decays into is. Those short half life duaghter isotopes.
Mitigation techniques Should be added to all building codes.
...or we could actually research why this is all a bunch of fear mongering BS & tell our politicians to stop making laws for such & settle for warnings encouraging people to do their own research into it.
Why are newer built houses having higher radon levels?
I would bet on better isolation. My radon detector goes way higher since my air exchanger is broken
How is there not more general public awareness of radon?
With all the toxic waste legally and illegally dumped everywhere, including down empty mine shafts, it has to go somewhere as it degrades. Don't forget all the bombs they tested underground. Just think of all the cracks that connect to each other and to caverns inside the earth.
Radon is a naturally occuring gas. One of the major sources is granite bedrock.
I usually go with mainstream science, but radon is one place I need to pause. If radon truly was so dangerous, why do people quite literally not give a rats behind about radon for the years and decades they live in a house, only when they want to buy/sell do they care. We do so much to make roads safer, and drugs safer, but nobody puts a second thought about radon? Why? Why no ad campaigns to get people to test their homes to save lives?
Because it's about what makes money dude. Exactly why nobody cares till property value comes into play.
More cancer, more money. Sad truth
Why ? Because this radon panic is based on fake science and misrepresentation of test results that don’t measure radon
@@jamiegarcia6060 There isn't a single controlled study on exposure to radon at concentrations found in American homes. Even the EPA admitted that they don't have any actual data for it. They used "guesswork" and incomplete data from miners working in underground mines that were exposed to levels of radon that were magnitudes higher than even the highest levels of radon found in a house. There are a thousand other things that you will be exposed to every day that are more likely to cause cancer than radon in your basement. Mold in your basement is a bigger health threat than the minuscule amounts of radon that might be there. It's an amazing moneymaking scam for the "radon mitigation" industry though. Terrify people about an invisible radioactive gas and tell people they're going to get lung cancer because their fake "radon detector" gave a "bad" number. Con artists installing $100 worth of PVC piping and a cheap fan and raking in thousands of dollars for it. What a great scam.
The thing is, the public isn't as smart as you give it credit for. People are generally idiots, (whether we admit it or not) and because it's invisible. If it's invisible, it's a lot harder to make people actually care.
... great sales pitch... but I've heard that the average American household can't drop their Radon levels below 2 Pci... or whatever the measurement is. Folks.. I'm starting to think this might be a racket...
You're not wrong - this guy is a scammer.
Doc Stoddard as a real estate agent I deal with this all the time. Actual,y I just got an inspection back that is 19.2 in basement. So now I have to figure this out for my clients.
Real estate agent here, in Portland, a fairly high radon area. Lots of homes start off below 2 pC/L, and after remediation I've never seen one above 1.0
@@daverudolph7777 we're at 11
Dear Stoddard, One cannot bring down radon levels to zero as it's geogenic and almost ubiquitously present on our earth's crust. It isn't wise to say that it may be a racket or something. Radon-or for that matter any radioactive element with a short half-life (like radon) is highly dangerous and exposure at any level can cause some damage to the DNA (p53 gene). We call this as "Linear No Threshold model" meaning at no levels radiation are safe. Therefre tthe 2 pCi or 4 pCi levels are always referred to as "RECOMMENDED LEVELS" and never "SAFE LEVELS"-because they ain't. Thank you.
This is what’s known as over-selling. I’m quite sure there are hundreds, potentially four, five, even six figures of words, grunts & motivations to depict what this guy is actually doing on the TED stage.
This message was brought to you by the residential radon mitigation industry, and by homeowner’s wallets like yours!
ha ha ha...WORD!
You can just open your windows to eliminate radon indoors
@@darthyoda4085not very practical in -30C weather in the Canadian winter
What does he mean by sensitive to radon? Can some people sense it or are some people immune to it compared to the sensitive type? Any more info on this?
izzzzzz6 Currently learning about radon in school. In my book it states smokers are more sensitive to radon exposure. The risk of lung cancer from radon exposure is estimated at between 10 to 20 times greater for persons who smoke cigarettes as compared with those who have never smoked. I didn’t explain why.
It*
@@jamiegarcia6060 I was just commenting about hypersensitivity on another video about mould exposure. A youtuber claimed that mould exposure would never be a health risk but all of this seemed to be based on statistics yet some people are hypersensitive such as pollen sufferers, and they are usually too few in numbers to be counted by all statistics.
I believe that too much exposure to certain toxins can bring about hypersensitivity. So possibly by weakening and blasting their lungs with cigarette smoke they have perhaps not so much created hypersensitivity as such but more that they have weakened / semi destroyed their lungs already. In this case it might be more due to a build up of destruction rather than a build up of toxins.
izzzzzz6 Yea that’s correct. Thanks for that feedback! I asked my professor to explain more and she basically said that cigarettes have carcinogens. Making smokers even more sensitive to the radon, which also has carcinogens
@@jamiegarcia6060 Sounds like hypersensitivity built up by too many toxins. Cigarettes give off smoke which is regarded as a carcinogen as far as i'm aware. I heard once that they were farming some tobacco in certain areas where the dust was radioactive and that it could become stuck on the leaves further increasing the risk to smokers. Not sure if thats true or not.
5:56 so thats why ppl eat organic food...... PS dont go vegan, go organic -_-
Wait what, could you elaborate?
Why is radon used to treat cancer?
They use radiation to blast cancerous cells to death. Unfortunately it’s not that effective because radiation is extremely harmful for the human body and kills everything in sight. Current numbers are around 50% of Americans will die with cancer so the “treatment” we use isn’t working.
Actually, that's the paradox that we use the same substance to treat cancer that causes it lol
Radon itself is not used to treat cancer, at least not in developed countries. Targeted radiation is completely different and controlled. Radon gas is absolutely not used.
@@doctorkyle2985 Radiation is all around us all the of the time. Bananas are radioactive yet nobody hesitates to eat bananas. Every time you fly on a plane you are exposed to significant amounts of radiation. There has never been a controlled study on the link between lung cancer and radon exposure at the tiny concentrations in the home. The EPA's standards are based on junk science and "guesswork" using incomplete data on radon exposure to underground miners at concentrations that were several magnitudes greater than you would ever find in a US home. The hysteria over radon in the home is based on psuedoscience used by con artists that make a lot of money off of installing 'radon mitigation' systems that are grossly profitable.
Not a very convincing presentation when the best source he could find which claimed radon is dangerous in the home was from 1904.
I hate it when I have radioactive Pterosaurs in my house!
Very informative
Excellent presentation. Thank you.
Ive heard people who live in areas with radon actually have longer lives lol. The small amount of radiation makes your body stronger and more resilient
Radiation is never good for the body. The effect you are referring to is known as hormesis. We can also do this through exercise, sauna, heat, plants, etc. I’d pick one of those of radioactive material :)
In no way can ionizing radiation or alpha particles possibly be good for you in any way. Literally ripping apart your DNA harder than it can heal itself is generally a bad idea. Unless you are looking to literally kill the cells in your body and cause cancer.
I agree with David Brokaw... for real science with real data from the real world from a genuine scientist watch “The Myths of Radon”. No glittering generalities there.
Great talk. A complex topic made simple.
Certainly a great talk. ...if 'simple' fear mongering is the goal, ya. Those of us doing actual research on the topic have found this is SUCH a bunch of over-hyped misinformation. ...or at least it would be if it wasn't sapping people's hard-earned resources. :/
Pseudoscience that’s what the guys talking about
Well done, very well spoken and thorough; I very much liked this talk.
And it's all built on psuedoscience from our own EPA. There isn't a single controlled study on exposure to low concentrations of radon found in the home and lung cancer. It's all based on the EPA's junk science in an analysis from 1989 using data from miners working in underground mines where radon concentrations were several magnitudes greater than the radon levels found in the home. The took that data and used "guesswork" to come up with a standard for radon exposure in the home at tiny concentrations.
Radon danger is a theory.
This guy is really off base. Watch the 4 part lecture, Myths of Radon, also on youtube, to get an accurate, not misleading, idea of the dangers.
You can find any answer that you want if you are an anti vaxxer , a conspiracy theorist or a flat earther! Get out of your echo chamber... do your own research if you are concerned. I came to the conclusion that Aaron Goodarizi, PhD at the University of Calgary is bang on.
@@pthomas1054 HAHAHA so despite the indisputable fact that there isn't a single controlled study that has ever linked radon at those tiny concentrations to lung cancer, anyone that doesn't buy into this junk science is a "flat earther" and a "conspiracy theorist". This guy doesn't have any actual controlled study to back up the claims he makes. It's all based on the same EPA junk science from the 80's that used lung cancer rates of underground miners exposed to radon levels that were 80,000,000 pCi/l or greater, and used "guesswork" as the EPA itself called it to come up with a linear model that established that 2 pCi/l is the "recommended" level in a home. That's not how science works and you are clearly the mouth breathing flat-earther conspiracy theorist if there was one.
This is a comment upvoted by one person or a group of people. It shouldn’t be the tip comment, it is dangerous and misleading
Right on. Just watched it myself.
I'm pretty sure everything presented was factual as it's the same data I've read elsewhere. Additionally, as the purpose of the lecture was to inform and raise awareness it seems it was imminently successful.
Perfect explanation, very well done graphics.
Told all that, then "it is very easy fixable", without telling how - thumb down, sir!
"It is very easy fixable just continue giving me lots of research grants. My con-artist friends would really appreciate it if we just establish building codes that force everyone to install worthless radon mitigation units into all residential structures."
SCAM ALERT!!
I' going on a limb here and guessing you're not a real scientist. MAGA, yes, but not a scientist.
This guy is really off the mark try 5% the speed of light and can’t penetrate skin
Are we sure about this?
.... are u 10yo?... are you catholic ? -_-
@UC7n_cqTvsUespZVu9TWmOSQ - google his videos and watch them all. Three sides to every story.
Radon taste delicious!!!