-
Scam Alert. Members are reminded to NOT send money to buy anything. Don't buy things remote and have it shipped - go get it yourself, pay in person, and take your equipment with you. Scammers have burned people on this forum. Urgency, secrecy, excuses, selling for friend, newish members, FUD, are RED FLAGS. A video conference call is not adequate assurance. Face to face interactions are required. Please report suspicions to the forum admins. Stay Safe - anyone can get scammed.
Radon gas mitigation in our home.
- Thread starter John Conroy
- Start date
deleted_user
Super User
indicative of two differing strategies on how to affect change.
Canada has been loath to regulate home-building industry. Sweden not so much. The difference? The influence of lobbyist groups and I'd hazard a guess fewer huge production homebuilders in Sweden to form lobbyist groups.
But I could be wrong... maybe Swedes are more informed and demanding consumers. My experience is with US and Canadian production builders
In my opinion, we're currently having a healthy debate.no flames is all I ask.
Before I respond to @TorontoBuilder 's questions, l would like to clarify my position:
- Should everyone test their houses for radon: It's a personal choice, but why wouldn't you want to know?
- Should everyone who has elevated levels of radon look into some form of mitigation: I certainly would, and I don't understand why you wouldn't.
- Should you be required to provide a Radon test from an independent testing laboratory when you are selling a new or existing house: I'm glad that I'm not a policy maker or politician. I'd not want to touch that question with a 10' pole...
- Should radon fans be required in all new construction: Not sure. At the very least it should be made easy for the home owner to install a radon fan if necessary. In Winnipeg, it's heartening to see that new homes are at least required to have piping installed under the slab with a stub up through the floor.
- As to the question that is of primary importance: Risk. I'll elaborate a little on why I have the opinion that I do below.
I would also like to reiterate that I discovered high Radon levels in our house over 7 years ago. Research is always evolving and the risk levels of today may not be the risk levels of tomorrow, and vice verse. I have done no further research on Radon risks since then, so treat my opinions accordingly.
My qualifications are that I worked as an Engineer in building construction for over 20 years. My area of practice was Electrical and Project Management and I had ready access to Engineers and Architects for knowledge outside of my area of practice. I consider that I have a very good understanding of most of the factors which go into building construction and also have a good chance of realizing when I am stepping outside of my area of knowledge.
- Does my experience and background qualify me to discuss mitigation measures: I think it does for sub-slab Radon ventilation fans, certainly for uncomplicated installations.
- Should I discuss the risks associated with Radon gas inhalation in a public forum: My opinion is not until I've done research and developed a reasonably informed opinion and then at the very least ensured that my opinions are presented in a manner that encourages those who would like to do further research. If my previous posts haven't achieved this, then hopefully this post will clarify.
- Does this qualify me to pass myself as an expert on the risks associated with Radon gas inhalation: I'm an engineer, not a scientist or doctor that specializes in the study of health aspects of Radon inhalation.
Here's my "Radon Education and Mitigation" story:
In Winnipeg, probably at lease once a year, there is a media report about Radon, so when we moved into this current house Radon testing was high on my lists of investigations to do once we took possession.
In the fall time I borrowed a non-certified Radon meter from a co-worker and was horrified when it came back with a short-term reading that was almost twice that which Health Canada recommended, especially since I was conditioned to think that any ionizing radiation is bad. Lots of thoughts swirled through my mind: should I avoid going into the basement; should I turn off the recirculation fan on the furnace; should I leave windows open in the living areas etc. etc. etc. The next step though was to have a long-term Radon test done by an Environmental Testing laboratory and while I was waiting for that result, start researching risks and mitigation strategies. I can tell you it wasn't very comfortable going into the basement for a while and I definitely didn't even consider setting up my workshop there.
(The reason I borrowed the meter in the fall, is that I knew that we were heading into peak Radon season and this would then give me enough time to get a certified test done if necessary. I also then purchased my own non-certified meter as soon as I got the initial high result, so I could monitor trends and also use it after mitigation)
This really is the crux of why I responded to this thread. Radon is a risk, but so it getting in your car to grab a cup of coffee, and I can tell you that every morning getting coffee is a risk I’m willing to take.
Our house also has a moisture problem in the basement. My wife hates it when she sees the white powder on the floor (efflorescence) and thinks it's going to cause Cancer. All the research I've done says it's harmless, though I'm certainly not going to eat it. A co-worker who also had high Radon levels mentioned how prior to installing his sub-slab ventilation fan, he couldn't put a cardboard box on the floor without it falling apart. This is why I went straight to the installation of a Radon fan, since I also had a similar problem. There are other possible solutions that I could have tried first, like passive under-slab ventilation via the stack effect, but I didn't even consider them because I hated seeing the white powder too.
I spent probably 20-40 hours(?) reading about the health risks associated with Radon. I don't know if that's enough to develop an informed opinion, but it was enough for me. I started first reading the Health Canada recommendations then US, then European, then I read about the initial investigations into links between Radon and Lung Cancer, then follow on studies which re-examined the initial studies in light of new research. Then I looked into the risk factors associated with Lung Cancer in general. I kept on coming back to the question though: "Why don't a large percentage of people in Winnipeg have Lung Cancer, we are after all a hot spot for Radon".
I think the literature is unanimous that high Radon levels present an increased risk factor for Lung Cancer, but what was not clear to me is how the other risks like smoking, breathing particulates in from sitting in vehicles in traffic, woodworking dust, etc. etc. compare.
Luckily for me I had a uncomplicated install. The test ports I drilled suggested that I’d have a good chance of achieving ventilation from all corners of my house. And when I installed my Radon fan, subsequent testing showed a dramatic reduction in Radon levels. If I hadn’t seen a dramatic reduction though, then my next step would have been to find a specialist in Radon mitigation installations.
Hopefully this additional background is helpful, and has also clarified the context of my opinions.
An interesting (to me) side story. After I found out our house had high Radon levels, I felt compelled to let my neighbors know and offered to lend them my non-certified Radon meter.
Three of my neighbors said they didn't want to know, the remainder had already tested.
In some way I'm jealous, I wish I could just ignore a possible risk like those three neighbors had chosen to do.
Three of my neighbors said they didn't want to know, the remainder had already tested.
In some way I'm jealous, I wish I could just ignore a possible risk like those three neighbors had chosen to do.
deleted_user
Super User
I agree that I thought we were having a healthy debate, and I only took one exception to one assertion StevSmar made.
I have one more exception now... I'd mandate radon testing prior to sale... because the history of realtor and builder lobbying against health and safety improvements in Canadian housing stocks is toxic. I was a stakeholder in a group that consulted on whether or not HRVs should be required in all new homes. Builders plead poverty and claimed we wont sell another home.
I was a stakeholder in a group that consulted on whether or all homes should have home inspections and energy rating and be required to provide those to potential buyers at the time of resale. Many builders plead poverty and said we wont sell another home, the realtor's lobby jumped on board and said no one will never buy and other older home that requires improvements. Both of these excuses were transparent lies. Now we've had lobbying to prevent radon ratings at the time of sale, using the most transparent BS lies imaginable... "we wont be able to sell a home with a poor rating".... ah pardon me? dilapidated hovels are selling for a million bucks or more over the past few years. Nothing is impeding this housing market.
I'd prefer that people voluntarily fix their toxic homes prior to selling them to unwitting public, but every effort, and the efforts have been huge, has failed to get voluntary compliance with health and safety goals. The housing industry is where the auto industry was prior to the widespread adoption of seatbelts. All these articles you see on radon, their paid advertorials instigated by and paid for buy the govt in order to push consumers to demand better in the homes they buy. The downside is that this type of policy change takes years. So yeah I'd regulate in a heartbeat
Meanwhile, about 50% of homes present an elevated risk. 50%. Simple cost effective remediation can save thousands of lives being lost per year due to lung cancer. IF I were in charge I'd mandate radon testing before sale of home in a heartbeat. Just as I'd mandate a minimum radon ready install protocol for all new homes. I'd mandate HRVs in every new home too, and there is no incremental cost if the home is financed, because the energy savings costs offset the added cost of the equipment on the mortgage.
If I were anyone else, I'd buy a decent radon meter for 200 bucks or less. I'd take regular readings and log
deleted_user
Super User
some people still smoke, so it comes as no surprise
Yes, it continues to be an interesting conversation.
When I buy an appliance, it has an energy star rating and a warranty so it allows a relatively informed purchasing decision.
For the vast majority, a house purchase is the most major purchase of our lives. I sure wish they came with a star rating that covered things like environmental testing, energy consumption and expected lifespan.
I feel for naive or misdirected homeowners.
(My big annoyance was how when we were designing buildings, we weren’t required to provide an energy simulation etc. I hope that has changed now.)
deleted_user
Super User
Natural Resources Canada has long had a home energy efficiency rating system called EnerGuide for Houses. More recently in the mid 2010s we developed an EnerStar for New Homes rating for those new homes that outperform the standard new home efficiency.
The 1–100 EnerGuide scale
The 1–100 EnerGuide scale
ENERGY STAR for New Homes
Sadly various govts keep crippling these programs and renege on their agreements with builders to promote these programs to consumers.
Just as a guess - is it not detectable in the data because the problem is fairly uniform across Canada? The map I found of a study of Calgary found about half the homes here have a 100bq/m3 or more problem too. See link #15.
Well,...... you touched a sensitive button with that comment @TorontoBuilder ! LOL!
It is a popular public misconception that the auto industry doesn't do anything until forced to do so by regulation. I believe the media loves to portray things this way and the majority of the public buys it hook line and sinker.
The fact is that the auto industry lobbied FOR said regulations. They wanted a level playing field. The people who develop safety features usually develop them for consumers - they have families and people they care about too. It didn't take a rocket scientist to see the benefits of wearing a seat belt. Seat belts safe lives - period.
The industry originally wanted them to be standard equipment. But consumers didn't like having to pay for something they didn't want. And seat belts were expensive. Not for the parts, but rather for the vehicle structural system that works with them, the major structural changes to support them, and for the very expensive testing to develop them and prove that they work.
For a while, the industry offered vehicles with and without them. But people wouldn't buy them. Those that did wouldn't wear them.
Then even more expensive air bags and other passive systems were developed and the bar was raised. These passive systems were originally designed to protect people who refused to wear their belts. However, they didn't work as well as belts did. So NHTSA in the USA did what they often do. They put the monkey on industries back AGAIN. They basically said that if industry couldn't get 60% (don't quote me on the number) of consumers (based on state regulations) to wear their seat belts, then NHTSA would have no choice but to mandate passive restraints. So the industry launched a massive PR program to promote seat belt usage with consumers and with State Legislators. They DID NOT SUCCEED. So passive restraints were mandated.
Interestingly, Transport Canada did not take this same approach. Transport recognized that belts worked better than bags and mandated belts. They literally didn't care if there were bags or not. The result was extradinarily high belt usage rates in Canada.
When the smoke all cleared, the end result was bags mandated in the US and belts mandated in Canada. However, the industry bore full cost for both. At that point we were just talking the cost of hardware - not testing or design because the testing and design had to be done anyway! So all vehicles in both countries have both belts and bags today. And the result is safer vehicles for everyone whether or not they wear their belts! It's a very good ending to a complicated story.
Let me just add that it's the same story for almost anything you want to name in the auto industry. It's almost never what people are told by the media. Care to hear about enissions, or fuel economy, or leaded fuel, or or or.....
There are a few examples that are the other way though. But they are yet another story for another post.
Sorry for the lengthy defense. Just couldn't sit quietly by while you compared auto industry guys like me to all those horrible nasty despicable rotten puss spewing blood sucking scum bags in building construction.....
Interesting Susquatch. I had a friend with a very conservative family - they would not wear seat belts. Predictably a minor car accident put them all in the hospital with broken bones cuts etc. They all recovered. I quizzed him at length trying to understand why they would not wear belts. He agreed they probably would have been fine if they had been wearing belts. The clearest reasoning I could get out of him was something about freedom and not liking people telling them what to do - even if it is in their best interest. They still don't wear seat belts. What do I do with similar puzzling reasoning? Riding a motorcycle perhaps.
Do you ride without a helmet and leathers?
No. All the gear all the time. Boots. Motorcycle Pants. Gloves. Helmet. Armoured jacket.
deleted_user
Super User
Well,...... you touched a sensitive button with that comment @TorontoBuilder ! LOL!
It is a popular public misconception that the auto industry doesn't do anything until forced to do so by regulation. I believe the media loves to portray things this way and the majority of the public buys it hook line and sinker.
The fact is that the auto industry lobbied FOR said regulations. They wanted a level playing field. The people who develop safety features usually develop them for consumers - they have families and people they care about too. It didn't take a rocket scientist to see the benefits of wearing a seat belt. Seat belts safe lives - period.
The industry originally wanted them to be standard equipment. But consumers didn't like having to pay for something they didn't want. And seat belts were expensive. Not for the parts, but rather for the vehicle structural system that works with them, the major structural changes to support them, and for the very expensive testing to develop them and prove that they work.
For a while, the industry offered vehicles with and without them. But people wouldn't buy them. Those that did wouldn't wear them.
Then even more expensive air bags and other passive systems were developed and the bar was raised. These passive systems were originally designed to protect people who refused to wear their belts. However, they didn't work as well as belts did. So NHTSA in the USA did what they often do. They put the monkey on industries back AGAIN. They basically said that if industry couldn't get 60% (don't quote me on the number) of consumers (based on state regulations) to wear their seat belts, then NHTSA would have no choice but to mandate passive restraints. So the industry launched a massive PR program to promote seat belt usage with consumers and with State Legislators. They DID NOT SUCCEED. So passive restraints were mandated.
Interestingly, Transport Canada did not take this same approach. Transport recognized that belts worked better than bags and mandated belts. They literally didn't care if there were bags or not. The result was extradinarily high belt usage rates in Canada.
When the smoke all cleared, the end result was bags mandated in the US and belts mandated in Canada. However, the industry bore full cost for both. At that point we were just talking the cost of hardware - not testing or design because the testing and design had to be done anyway! So all vehicles in both countries have both belts and bags today. And the result is safer vehicles for everyone whether or not they wear their belts! It's a very good ending to a complicated story.
Let me just add that it's the same story for almost anything you want to name in the auto industry. It's almost never what people are told by the media. Care to hear about enissions, or fuel economy, or leaded fuel, or or or.....
There are a few examples that are the other way though. But they are yet another story for another post.
Sorry for the lengthy defense. Just couldn't sit quietly by while you compared auto industry guys like me to all those horrible nasty despicable rotten puss spewing blood sucking scum bags in building construction.....
Sorry, but I simplified a far more complex and nuanced issue to boil down to the strongest influencer.
There are builders who build better and they have for years been the minority lobbying for a level playing field, because there is a whol class of buyers who arrive, ask how many square feet is this home.... then break out the calculator to find the price per square foot. Then say "so and so's home cheaper... you have to lower your price." Those consumers know there are differing quality standards, they just want to negotiate and break balls. They should not dictate market standards.
You can't help stupid. There will always be purchasers who oppose something. We cant create standards to the lowest threshold... but sadly our system operates by having to move public opinion until an overwhelming majority (75% or more) support something before we can gain political will to regulate something.
deleted_user
Super User
exposure thresholds just mean that people have a higher chance of getting cancer, not that they will all get cancer in their lifetime. except if they live long enough... BUT places like Winnipeg and SK will see far more victims of lung cancer than other locales. The cause is radon.
environmentally caused cancer it a crap shoot. cancer causing agents typically damage cells by various modes, the products of radon decay release energy which fries lung cells. Every time there is damage it is like rolling the dice whether the damage will lead to a cell mutation that is malignant.
Life is a game of Russian roulette with a revolver that has 30,000 chambers and only one round.
Living in a home with elevated radon levels is like adding 100 more rounds to the chamber.
Smoking is like adding another 500 rounds to the chamber.
Now factor in that in lung cancer, it's like you were cowardly clown who tried to jerk the gun away at the last second, resulting in missing vital organs causing gross disfigurement and slow agonizing death instead of a nice quick death
Perhaps.
But at the risk of taking yet another unpopular stand, I'm more on the page that says we are over-regulated already. I'd rather see less regs than more.
Can you imagine what would happen if the knife was invented today? They would all be regulated.
Stupidity will always exist. Darwin looks after them eventually.
My dad used to say that: "When you are dead, you don't know you are dead. It's only hard on everyone else around you. It's the same when you are stupid......" I didn't much like how often he would tell me that....
deleted_user
Super User
remember the collapse of the Algo mall in Elliott Lake, without our regulations things like this would be regular occurrence. as they are in many areas outside of Canada. I'm for protecting survivors from the stupidity of their relatives, from corporate avarice and greed and as much human error as possible.
Many of those who argue that we are over regulated place a little value on human life and disregard the vast resources and expertise behind the regulations that determine on the balance of the whole, the benefits of regulation outweigh the potential infringement on free and open society. Some people drink and smoke while pregnant too, I dont think they can claim ignorance.
I can't think of a single case where those behind regulations used violence to impose their view either... or coercion. It is next to impossible to pass regulation without the support of overwhelming majority.
We better be careful this is bordering on political discussion eh
Sports though, I think we have far too much sports and that it is a leading source of modeling many negative behaviours
Ya, you are prolly right. The regulatory view prolly does border on politics. I spent too much of my time arguing with bureaucrats so I have a biased view of the matter.
Let's just agree to disagree and move on! Besides, there are WAY better things to debate on here!
Well, this definitely isn’t a metalworking topic. Though I do think that those who frequent a forum like this would tend to be more than capable of installing their own radon mitigation if needed, so perhaps this is an appropriate forum for a discussion like this? Especially if the knowledge is also provided on when it’s time to call in the specialists if things don’t go to plan.
I sure enjoyed reading your perspective on safety improvements in vehicles.
Now that I agree with!
Machines, test equipment, and testing is a very wide subject and I would think we could definitely cover that part here!