Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Maine
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-11-2009, 09:32 AM
 
643 posts, read 1,486,004 times
Reputation: 622

Advertisements

On the thread about health insurance the last several posts have been about Maine's cancer rates with links to tables and graphs about those rates. It's possible that regional radon levels (left untreated) might be a culprit. This is particularly applicable to the lung cancer rates.

Even though we'll rent for our first year in Maine, we're going to want the house to be checked for the radon level and if it's high, we'll even pay for the mitigation system. The risk for lung cancer while living an otherwise heathy lifestyle in a structure with high radon levels would be unacceptable to most people -- it's simply that most people aren't aware of it. Until or unless one is involved in a residential real estate transaction you just wouldn't come across the info. The state does a good job on its web page (linked below) covering the issue - although it's pretty high level, it's a decent overview.

I'd much rather be smoking like a factory and drinking like a fish to voluntarily accept that level of risk -- at least I'd get some enjoyment out of it.

http://www.maine.gov/dhhs/eng/rad/Radon/Radon_Homes_Sales.htm (broken link)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-11-2009, 11:50 AM
 
Location: Forests of Maine
37,468 posts, read 61,406,816 times
Reputation: 30414
From that website, I see:
"... the average residential radon level in the state is 4.1 pCi/l, and even higher in the southern portion."

"The state of Maine Maximum Exposure Guideline (MEG) for radon in water is 4,000 pCi/l."

So the average home exposure is a thousand times less than the limit?



"If 1,000 people who never smoked were exposed to this level over a lifetime ... [4 pCi/L] About 7 people could get lung cancer"

So they estimate that in 1,000 average Maine homes about 7 lung cancers are related to Radon?

And this is a level well below concern.



"The risk of cancer from radon exposure [at 4pCi/L]compares to ... The risk of dying in a car crash"

I wonder if this considers where I am drunk when I get in this car crash?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-11-2009, 12:19 PM
 
643 posts, read 1,486,004 times
Reputation: 622
I spoke to the EPA about this five years ago when a brand new home we were building in Illinois tested high for it -- they said that their office in the EPA was lobbying hard to get the maximum legal levels reduced -- that the legal limit was set far too high. The scientist I spoke to said he himself wouldn't live in a house with radon levels at 4pCi/L.

Radon is the second leading cause of lung cancer in the United States according to the National Cancer Institute and Maine is one of the states with high levels of Radon -- and lung cancer. It absolutely might be coincidental. But it's worth knowing since it's easily eradicated.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-11-2009, 12:30 PM
 
1,402 posts, read 3,501,915 times
Reputation: 1315
Quote:
Originally Posted by forest beekeeper View Post
From that website, I see:
"... the average residential radon level in the state is 4.1 pCi/l, and even higher in the southern portion."

"The state of Maine Maximum Exposure Guideline (MEG) for radon in water is 4,000 pCi/l."

So the average home exposure is a thousand times less than the limit?
The numbers are different because the radon exposure is different for air versus water. In the case of water, the radon exposure is limited because the cells of the digestive system turn over so quickly (completely new lining of digestive tract every 24 hours!). The only real threat of radon in water is showering where the radon is released from the water by the shower head.

The EPA's air radon limit is 4pCi/L (right at the Maine average btw) and is so much lower because of the direct exposure of radon with the lungs. Lung cells do not turn over like digestive tract cells do....therefore they have more cumulative exposure to the radon.

Quote:
Originally Posted by forest beekeeper View Post
"If 1,000 people who never smoked were exposed to this level over a lifetime ... [4 pCi/L] About 7 people could get lung cancer"

So they estimate that in 1,000 average Maine homes about 7 lung cancers are related to Radon?

And this is a level well below concern.
Maybe for you, maybe not for someone else...doesn't hurt to test though. I'm glad I did....ours was 40pCi/L.....10x the limit! We are in Southern Maine. Interestingly, new houses apparently test higher because of the improvements in insulation and windows, etc. Sometimes it pays to have that drafty old farmhouse!

I figured the $800 to install a radon remediation was money well spent, considering if I ever sold the house the new buyers would mostly likely test and demand I install a system anyway...may as well reap the benefits of the system if I'm going to have to spend the money anyway...



Quote:
Originally Posted by forest beekeeper View Post
"The risk of cancer from radon exposure [at 4pCi/L]compares to ... The risk of dying in a car crash"

I wonder if this considers where I am drunk when I get in this car crash?
True enough...radon is thought to be the second leading cause of lung cancer (behind smoking), but accounts for only 1% or so of the total lung cancer cases....basically saying that pretty much ALL of lung cancer is caused by smoking! But again...its all about levels, exposure, risk-tolerance, etc., etc.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-11-2009, 12:32 PM
 
Location: Forests of Maine
37,468 posts, read 61,406,816 times
Reputation: 30414
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sunday1 View Post
... It isn't a big deal to eradicate radon, period. ...
Really?

Radon is natural. It naturally outgasses from concrete.

Any structure that is built using concrete will have Radon.

And according to the website you posted it is also very present in ground water [which I did not know].

Every house built using concrete has some issue with Radon, everywhere on the planet. Not just in Maine.

'Tight' houses are worse as they are not as well ventilated. An old drafty house, breaths and allows outgassing to flow away and not to build up to hazardous levels.

A well sealed and insulated house has a greater tendency to hold in these outgasses, so they can build to high levels.

So you open a window and let the stink blow out from time to time, through the summers. Or you have a woodstove going through the winter so you get the recommended 400cu/ft of air per hour cycling through your home.

This is no big deal.



But you say that you can eradicate Radon entirely? How?

Get rid of concrete?

Get rid of ground water?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-11-2009, 12:36 PM
 
1,402 posts, read 3,501,915 times
Reputation: 1315
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sunday1 View Post
I
Radon is the second leading cause of lung cancer in the United States according to the National Cancer Institute and Maine is one of the states with high levels of Radon -- and lung cancer. It absolutely might be coincidental. But it's worth knowing since it's easily eradicated.
Its true that radon is a second leading cause of lung cancer, but its second place by a HUGE difference:

From: Radon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"In the United Kingdom, residential radon is, after cigarette smoking, the second most frequent cause of lung cancer deaths: 83.9% of deaths are attributed to smoking only, 1.0% to radon only, and 5.5% to a combination of radon and smoking.[104]"
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-11-2009, 12:41 PM
 
643 posts, read 1,486,004 times
Reputation: 622
We have had two houses now with radon mitigation systems - that is the eradication I was referring to. To your point....we like new construction. I grew up in some very drafty old houses (beauts on small, spring fed lakes in Washington State) that might have been much healthier! The last two new houses tested very high...and to each his own...but I prefer to have a mitigation system installed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-11-2009, 12:42 PM
 
1,402 posts, read 3,501,915 times
Reputation: 1315
Quote:
Originally Posted by forest beekeeper View Post
Really?

Radon is natural. It naturally outgasses from concrete.

Any structure that is built using concrete will have Radon.

And according to the website you posted it is also very present in ground water [which I did not know].

Every house built using concrete has some issue with Radon, everywhere on the planet. Not just in Maine.

'Tight' houses are worse as they are not as well ventilated. An old drafty house, breaths and allows outgassing to flow away and not to build up to hazardous levels.

A well sealed and insulated house has a greater tendency to hold in these outgasses, so they can build to high levels.

So you open a window and let the stink blow out from time to time, through the summers. Or you have a woodstove going through the winter so you get the recommended 400cu/ft of air per hour cycling through your home.

This is no big deal.



But you say that you can eradicate Radon entirely? How?

Get rid of concrete?

Get rid of ground water?
Splitting hairs, but it doesn't outgas from concrete but from soil and rock...we just tend to pour concrete into alot of holes we dig.

Different areas of the country have different amounts. In our case, we grew up in the Northeast and knew that we needed to test of radon. The folks we bought our house from bought the house as a new construction, were from Maryland and it never occurred to them that they should have tested!

Maine is particularly bad, but its REALLY bad in other regions of the country (e.g. Iowa).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-11-2009, 12:46 PM
 
643 posts, read 1,486,004 times
Reputation: 622
My 50 year old brother lives in Snoqualmie, Washington. He has lung cancer and has never smoked a cigarette a day in his life. Sometimes, stats are just numbers.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-11-2009, 12:52 PM
 
1,402 posts, read 3,501,915 times
Reputation: 1315
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sunday1 View Post
We have had two houses now with radon mitigation systems - that is the eradication I was referring to. To your point....we like new construction. I grew up in the some very drafty old houses (beauts on small, spring fed lakes in Washington State) that might have been much healthier! The last two new houses tested very high...and to each his own...but I prefer to have a mitigation system installed.
Yeah, I think I would rather take the the long-term energy savings of a new construction and outfit it with a radon system than go with a older house that is drafty and allows the radon to escape also.

The other thing about radon is that its a heavy gas so it tends to pool in low areas (basements/cellars for example). Drafty house may not vent radon as effectively as you like. A radon system pulls radon from underneath the foundation pad by negative pressure created by a fan. Its more of an active system.

Again, its an individual risk tolerance thing. For us, we installed an air radon removal system but also have borderline levels of water radon. However, in reading up on water radon we were more concerned about the air radon and decided to not to go for an additional water radon filtration system for our well (big $$$).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Maine
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top