Well, Radon has been found to be carcinogenic and studies as recent as 2005 show it to be the second leading cause of lung cancer after cigarette smoke. To be certain and to get an official and scientific opinion on the subject I would get in contact with our regional EPA office to answer some of your questions.

Warning Chemistry Ahead

Just for some background, Radon is a naturally occurring radioactive element and one of the noble gasses. Radon can break down from its natural state Radon-222 and create Polonium-218 and Polonium-214 which both give off alpha particles that can damage tissues in your lungs and possibly leading to cancer.

I am not sure what test you used and the scale you are going by, but the US Government guidelines suggest taking action when Radon levels are higher than 148 Bq/m3. The Bq in that number stands for becquerels which is a special unit for radioactive materials that describes how much a given material decays over time. 1 in 15 houses in the United States are estimated to have this elevated level of Radon.

So what should you do? We aren't in any way qualified to answer that question and your toxicologist friend might not be either. Radiation and its negative effects are a fact of life that we must all face. How you face them is up to you. But, I would stick with what you local EPA expert tells you. Get in touch with them.

Have other Science Buzz visitors had any experience with Radon in their homes?

Here's the deal.....

A 6.whatever radon level presents a certain HYPOTHETICAL "excess cancer risk". So....you have to keep in mind that there is nothing at all precise in this science. In fact, those of us that are honest about science's shortcomings would probably call that facet of environmental health risk assessment "voodoo science" or "pseudoscience". If 4.0 pCi/liter is the lower end of a "range of concern" and 20 pCi makes our eyes wide, I'd just relax and say to myself: "OK, this pseudoscience says that my kids risk of getting lung cancer at age 60 will decrease from a hypothetical 3 in 1,000,000 to 1.643545 in 1,000,000 if I reduce it from 6.2 to 4.0.....so....how much money is this worth to me?" Impossible to answer accurately, true?

I know that radon causes lung cancer among a few unlucky people of the millions that are exposed to it. I also know that in the grand scheme of things, it is a miniscule risk. For example, one of the most respected texts in public health on the "science" of cancer tosses out a few statistics that you just don't see in the popular media about statistics and causes of cancer (estimates):

TOBACCO                    
33 %
                   
DIET AND ADULT OBESITY 32 %
                   
PERINATAL
EFFECTS           
6 %
                   
BIOLOGIC AGENTS (EG VIRUSES) 5 %
                   
--------------------------------
                   
OCCUPATIONAL FACTORS 5 %
                   
ALCOHOL                     
3 %
                   
SEDENTARY
LIVING            
3 %
                   
REPRODUCTIVE FACTORS 3 %
                   
--------------------------------
                   
INHERITED
GENES             
3 %
                   
IONIZING AND UV RADIATION 3 %
                   
ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION 2 %
                   
FOOD ADDITIVES (INCL. SALT) 2 %
                   
MEDICAL PRODUCTS/PROCEDURES 1 %

So...Radon is a tiny subset of the 2% identified as "Environmental pollution". (I've attached a very interesting article in this regard, including a little discussion on radon).

NOW, if I was living in YOUR house, I'd try sealing up the cracks in the basement slab, and re-test to see what it says. Period. If it goes down to 5.7, great. I'd feed my kids a few extra carrots, and make them ride their bike around the block 1 extra time per week. I've probably overcompensated for that radon exposure "risk" by 100X by doing so.

After doing some research I have to say that Bryan Kennedy misspoke about radon. Studies show it "projected to be the second leading cause of lung cancer". Actually there are no published conclusive studies of residential radon exposure that prove it to be harmful at all. Every study is based on the effects on Uranium Miners. If I am wrong, please correct me.