Answers to Elweddridsche :
1. Childhood Cancer Study, June 20, 2002 by prominent cancer specialist Sir Richard Doll

2. More people in the scientific community are
expressing these doubts. More case by case testings should be done, having this possible confusion (passive smokers not sick from radon but from… smokers) in mind.

3. I agree with you : there is a lack of study
about this.

4. Why any remedial measures at all ?… Well,
I first honestly tried to implement these proposed
by our scientific autorities. And then I stopped.
Stop loosing time and money on 1,5% remediation requests !

5. It’s difficult to understand what you mean
by “argument from incredulity”. Please, be more
specific.

6. Okay, that’s nice from you to consider this
“farfetched claim”. Now, digging on the Net, I
found an article going a little bit in that way.
It’s from Tim Radford, Science Editor, THE GUARDIAN - Issue September 2005, the 6th, under the title : nuclear news 1.
I went to the photoblog you advise : incredible !

Okay, having done my duty as a self-appointed referee I’ll leave the combatants to do their thing.  Whenever a wonder cure is proposed, the proponents have to demonstrate correlation and causation; for the long laundry list mentioned in the opening post I’m not holding my breath.

Oh, the argument from incredulity - “I can’t believe this is just a placebo effect”.

On the question of radon’s association with lung cancer, I’d like to explain why that is the relevant cancer.

Radon is a noble gas, which is the radioactive daughter of radium, which is found as a naturally-occurring element in our soils, concrete, and bricks.  Using a standard dose assessment tool (such as the RESRAD Code), one will generally find that the dose attributable to the radium in the soil and concrete is negligible compared to the dose that will be attributable to the radon it produces.

The radon, because it’s a noble gas will be released from the soil/concrete/brick matrix into the indoor atmosphere, where it is then inhaled.  In addition, the radon in the air will continue to decay into its daughter products, and depending on the dust content in the air, those daughters will also be available for respiration.  In fact, the primary dose actually comes from the inhaled radon daughters, not from the radon itself.  This dose is specifically to the lung tissue, hence the association with lung cancer.

Other oral/nasal cancers could theoretically have an association with radon, but at much lower numbers than the lung cancers, which are already epidemiologically challenging to identify.

Barbara L. Hamrick

Just for further clarification, the dose from the inhaled radon daughters is specific to the lung tissue, because the dose is related to the alpha particle decays taking place in the lungs.  Alpha particles, because of their mass, will not travel very far in tissue, so the tissue into which they are initially deposited (in this case the lung tissue) will be the recipient of the alpha energy.  It is the energy deposited that causes the damage.

Barbara

Thanks, Barbara. So from what I gather:

If it’s alpha decay, the radon isotope effectively fissions into an ejected helium nucleus and a lead isotope, which in turn might be stable or not. If it isn’t, the question about the decay mode arises again, and so on…

Alpha particles being big, heavy, and slow don’t penetrate deeply, so exposure to radioactive radon gas should obviously affect the skin and whatever parts of the lung come into contact with inhaled air. I would guess that radon itself wouldn’t be trapped within the lungs, but the decay products might accumulate - question is, are these of clinical concern?

To make a long story short, I can see that radioactive radon would affect skin or lungs, accounting for a subset of the original laundry list. Of course, if it cures a condition on merit of its radioactivity, then informally put what does it hit just so hard to affect a cure without the longterm risk of cancer? I suppose it’s a thresholding problem…

All told, count me dubious. Even if there is a statistical correlation, the causation part seems tricky to me.

Let me answer to your latest comments by a translated summary of a German written book ("Radon as medicine; Therapeutic Effectiveness, Biological Effects and Comparative Assessment of Risks"). The book as a whole will be translated into English. It was written by 6 experts in the field, two of them were leading raditation protection officials in Germany for two decades.

Christoph Koestinger,
Gasteiner Heilstollen

Brief Summary of the Results

Controlled clinical trials, carried out as far as possible as prospective randomised, placebo-controlled double blind trials, have shown that radon treatment is an effective means of providing long-term pain relief and enables a reduction in the use of medicines; and its effects remain significant many months after the end of the treatment when compared with patients who were not given radon. The lowering of the cellular immune response as a result of the cell apoptosis by low alpha particle doses and the subsequent release of anti-inflammatory messengers is clearly the molecular and cellular mechanism guaranteeing the long-term success of this treatment. The radiation protection authorities believe that these amounts of radon do not trigger any side effects, as the doses of radiation used are below people’s average annual natural exposure to radiation and within the breadth of possible variations; and this level of exposure must be pitted against the undesirable effects of non-steroid anti-rheumatics, if drugs are used to treat the illness.

Summary of the Results

1.Results from 5 controlled clinical trials on the effectiveness of radon treatment in treating degenerative spinal cord illnesses, rheumatoid arthritis or ankylosing spondylitis (Bechterew’s disease) are available. 3 trials with warm radon baths were carried out as prospective, randomised, placebo-controlled double blind trials; in the case of the two trials in the warm radon underground gallery, two groups were treated in just the same way apart from the radon treatment. The target parameters of the trials were pressure pain thresholds, pain intensity, functional restrictions and drug consumption. All the trials showed significant success lasting several months after the end of the treatment.

2.A meta-analysis of the effect of radon on the pain parameters in the pooled data on 378 patients showed that there was no significant difference between the radon treatment and control groups immediately after the treatment phase. During the following period, however, the level of pain measured in the patients treated with radon was significantly lower: after 3 months (p = 0.02) and after 6 months (0 = 0.002).

3.Contraindications not caused by radon in radon treatment spas are primarily the result of the heat in warm baths or warm underground gallery treatments for patients with heart/circulation problems. 

4. Because of some irritation caused by radiation in the cellular and subcellular areas, no radon applications should be administered to patients with acute inflammation, except acute attacks of Bechterew’s disease. Although the exposure to radiation in all the radon balneological treatments is significantly lower than the average annual natural dose of radiation of 2.4 mSv (see point 7), radon treatment should only be used with children and young people – because f their higher sensitivity to radiation – if the possible health risk of treating the illness with drugs is greater than the hypothetical risk of exposure to radiation.

5. The therapeutically effective agent in treating chronic inflammation pain with radon is the alpha radiation in radon and its short-lived daughter products. In the case of bathing treatments with warm water containing radon or treatments in warm underground galleries and radon gas baths, radon daughter products are deposited on the epidermis. Radon is also absorbed by the bloodstream by diffusion through the skin and after being retained for a short period in the tissue supplied with blood, it is eliminated through the lungs. In the case of warm treatments in underground galleries and radon gas baths, radon is also absorbed through the respiratory system. The dose in the epidermis after e.g. 10 baths each lasting 20 minutes and a radon concentration of 1,600 Bq/L in the warm water is estimated to be approx. 2 mGy. The corresponding number of alpha particles penetrating the epidermis is about 80 per mm². So only a very small fraction of all the cells is involved in the primary reaction of the alpha radiation with the tissue. However, these have strong cellular reactions because of the high linear energy transfer of the alpha particles.

6. According to the latest evidence, the easing of pain provided by radon treatment in the case of chronic inflammation is based on a lowering of the cellular immune response in the inflamed tissue. The results of experiments and physiological observations point to a molecular and cellular reaction, which begins with apoptosis, the programmed cell death of individual skin cells or cells in the lung tissue, and leads to a reduction in inflammatory macrophage and neutrophilic activities and leucocyte migration as a result of anti-inflammatory cytokine signals, dendritic cells and T-helper cells. This effect, which is well known when patients are exposed to ultra-violet B and or given inflammation treatment with x-rays, is also being confirmed increasingly by the direct observation of cytokine production and the lowering of the cellular immune response. The increased biological effectiveness of the alpha radiation in comparison with x-ray treatment and the inclusion of neighbouring cells by what is known as the “bystander effect�? explain how these results are achieved, even with very small doses of alpha radiation.

7.The effective dose for the patient for radon balneotherapy spa baths and warm radon steam baths, baths, inhalation therapy in an underground gallery or warm gallery is between 0.05 and max. 2 mSv, i.e. well below the figure for an average annual natural radiation dose of 2.4 mSv (variation range: 1 – 10 mSv).

8.The hypothetical, conservatively estimated risk of lung cancer in a patient as a result of inhaling 222Rn and its decay products during health treatment in the warm underground gallery at Bad Gastein is more than 2 orders of magnitude below the spontaneous risk of lung cancer – i.e. 0.01% as opposed to the average 4% in the population. In the case of this assessment, it is assumed for precautionary purposes with regard to radiation protection that, even in the area of low doses and dose rates for natural exposure to radiation, there is a linear link without any threshold limits between the biological effect – lung cancer – and the dose, i.e. biological adjustment mechanisms have not been taken into consideration.

9.The annual effective dosage for staff is between 0.2 and 15 mSv, depending on which treatment is used and the length of time involved – i.e. for bathing or inhalation treatment. It therefore only exceeds the upper limit of the fluctuation margin for exposure to natural radiation of 1-10 mSv in the most unfavourable circumstances. The limits set by the German Radiation Protection Order and the international recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection, ICRP, and the basic standards of the European Union of 20 mSv per annum for people exposed to radiation as part of their job, i.e. 100 mSv over 5 years, are only exceeded slightly in some cases. Because the limits are not exceeded for people exposed to radiation for professional reasons, the staff at spa baths are often excluded from individual radiation protection monitoring by the authority responsible for state law. 

10.The use of non-steroid anti-rheumatics (NSAR) is widespread. It is likely that 800 million daily doses of NSAR were dispensed by the pharmaceutical wholesale and retail industry (chemists) in Germany in 1998. On average doctors prescribe an NSAR for 25% of the patients they see. These medicines may provide the desired pain relief and anti-inflammatory effects, but there is a relatively large risk of undesirable side effects. 

11.Most of the undesirable side effects of NSAR occur in the stomach and intestines and they range from surface mucous membrane lesions to bleeding ulcers (stomach or duodenal ulcers) or even perforation of the stomach. Gastroscopic examinations have shown that more than 70% of patients treated with NSAR have changes in the mucous membrane in their stomach. Studies have shown over the past few years that 10 – 20% of these serious complications cannot be treated and are fatal. The risk of a fatal complication grows as patients become older. It is estimated that 1,100 – 2,200 such cases occur every year in Germany.

12.In contract with the observed undesirable side effects of NSAR, the undesirable side effects of radon caused by the risks involved in using radiation are only hypothetical and estimated. These risks are at least 2 orders of magnitude below the spontaneous risks and should therefore be classified as negligible.

According to these latest detailed informations from C. Koestinger, it seem very difficult to further contest the effectiveness of Radon therapy.
Furthermore, Germans and Austrians have a long practical experience about these cures, as well as beeing far advanced in accupuncture and homeopathy therapies - cures that work, despite all the contempt from blunt “rationalists” !

BUT, what seem more a source of contest than the radon therapy are the residential and annual exposure to radon. This exposure is touching millions of people and we are left in great expectation with one main question : do we need
to worry or not ?

And the autorities - the ones edicting the warnings - are finally of very little help because
they are glued in their own contradictions.
On the one hand, they incit people to “seal their
homes” to save energy and offer money compensations for these improvements(at least in European countries)…
On the other hand, they urge to ventilate homes to
release excess of radon.
Inept contradictions !

And as I was saying earlier, many epidemiologic studies could be suspected of a net lack of professionalism, by including passive smokers as beeing “victims” of radon, instead of beeing victims of… smokers living under the same roof !

How would we trust these so-called “experts” ?
Hollistic Chap

“Hollistic” writes…

According to these latest detailed informations from C. Koestinger, it seem very difficult to further contest the effectiveness of Radon therapy.
Furthermore, Germans and Austrians have a long practical experience about these cures, as well as beeing far advanced in accupuncture and homeopathy therapies - cures that work, despite all the contempt from blunt “rationalists�? !

Again, you had me up until “homeopathy.” Christoph’s contribution has once again piqued my interest in looking further into the ongoing studies of radon therapy as the summary at least sounds reasonable enough. I don’t deny there’s a possibility that radon therapy could be effective, but I still find the haphazard means of application somewhat dubious. I know of no other form of radiation therapy that consists primarily of telling folks to go sit in a room full of radiation for a certain amount of time. Most forms of radiation treatment are short term and carefully controlled to minimize the risks involved.

As for acupuncture and homeopathy, most of the studies I’ve read about acupuncture are inconclusive at best, but homeopathy has been pretty well established as bunk. If you really want to convince me that there’s something to radon therapy you’d be best served by not trying to drag in other fringe medical therapies such as homeopathy.

BUT, what seem more a source of contest than the radon therapy are the residential and annual exposure to radon. This exposure is touching millions of people and we are left in great expectation with one main question : do we need
to worry or not ?

According to the EPA we do. They link to a number of studies including one recently done by the University of Iowa which shows a link between residential radon exposure and lung cancer:

The study, an analysis of data pooled from seven different North American residential radon studies, demonstrates an 11 to 21 percent increased lung cancer risk at average residential radon concentrations of approximately 3.0 picocuries per liter of air, during an exposure period of five to 30 years. The lung cancer risk increased with increasing radon exposure. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s current action level for residential radon is 4.0 picocuries per liter.

“This analysis, based on the largest radon data set assembled in North America, agrees with a similar large-scale radon pooled analysis performed concurrently in Europe. The North American and European pooling provides unambiguous and direct evidence of an increased lung cancer risk even at residential radon exposure levels below the U.S. EPA’s action level,” according to R. William Field, Ph.D., UI College of Public Health associate professor of occupational and environmental health and epidemiology, and a co-author of the study, which is reported in the March 2005 issue of the journal Epidemiology. Charles F. Lynch, M.D., Ph.D., UI College of Public Health professor of epidemiology, also contributed to the research.

Radon is the second-leading cause of lung cancer in the United States with an estimated 21,000 lung cancer deaths each year related to radon exposure, according to EPA. A radioactive, invisible, odorless gas that comes from the decay of naturally occurring uranium in the earth’s soil, radon can accumulate in enclosed areas, such as underground mines and homes.

The initial link between radon exposure and lung cancer had been derived from studies of underground miners, who are exposed at much higher levels to the radioactive gas, and from animal and in vitro studies.

The World Health Organization also seems to feel there’s a problem with radon exposure:

Although the average exposure to radon varies enormously, recent studies have shown that, when exposed to a radon concentration of 100 Bq (Becquerels)/m³, a non-smoker’s risk of lung cancer by age 75 years increases by 1 in a 1000 compared to non-exposed persons. Among those who smoke and are exposed to the same radon concentration, the risk of lung cancer is about 25 times greater. On a global level, tens of thousands of lung cancer deaths annually can be attributed to radon. Most of the radon-induced lung cancer cases occur among smokers.
...
The project is initially expected to run for three years (2005-2007). As a first step, the WHO International Radon Project is setting up a global network of radon scientists, regulators and policy makers to collaborate in the project. Coordination will be provided by WHO. Working groups will focus on risk assessment, exposure guidelines, measurement and mitigation of radon levels, investigations of cost-effectiveness and risk communication. WHO guidelines based on this work will help national authorities to develop, promote and strengthen activities at country or regional level. The WHO fact sheets produced in the course of the Project will be a central communication tool to increase public awareness about radon. The WHO International Radon Project also aims to create a global radon database and provide improved global estimates of the disease burden associated with radon worldwide. Overall, together with global tobacco control activities and initiatives on healthy indoor air, the Project is expected to be a key step towards reducing lung cancer risk word wide.

Now I suppose it’s possible that the EPA and the World Health Organization are part of some vast global conspiracy to keep people in pain from seeking an effective treatment via radioactive mines, but somehow I find the plausibility of such a scenario to be very limited.

And the autorities - the ones edicting the warnings - are finally of very little help because
they are glued in their own contradictions.
On the one hand, they incit people to “seal their
homes�? to save energy and offer money compensations for these improvements(at least in European countries)…
On the other hand, they urge to ventilate homes to
release excess of radon.
Inept contradictions !

This is only a contradiction to the simple minded. It’s quite possible to have a house with proper weather stripping to help conserve energy while making certain that it’s ventilated properly to rid it of radon gas build up if it’s necessary. Not all homes have problems with large levels of radon build up, however, and something as simple as opening the windows during nice weather can make a difference.

And as I was saying earlier, many epidemiologic studies could be suspected of a net lack of professionalism, by including passive smokers as beeing “victims�? of radon, instead of beeing victims of… smokers living under the same roof !

Actually most of these studies do take into consideration smokers and those exposed to second hand smoke. Not coincidentally, radon increases the risks that much more among folks who fall into both categories.

How would we trust these so-called “experts�? ?

Well I can’t speak for everyone, but I’m more inclined to trust the EPA and WHO over someone who calls himself “Hollistic Chap” that believes homeopathy is an effective treatment. Especially considering that it’s spelled “holistic”, with one ‘L’.

To Les.
“Touché” ! for my pseudo : a silly mistake I did not see.

I will not divert to other topics. Just one word about homeopathy and acupuncture (those “evil” words to you): try to convince the multi million of “homeopathoholic” people that it is not working because it is unproofed… or the one billion of Chinese that they waste their time for more than 2000 years !
For me, only acupuncture saved a paralysed leg.
No more comments !

The WHO ? - I appreciate the WHO and I refer to them very often for their real expertise.
This said, I hope that their project will involve
every seriousness that we are expected to benefit from a scientific body.

As far as the figures about the numbers and rates of deaths from radon itself are concerned, I am ready to accept them as conclusive, providing that
somebody could explain these figures really scientifically… After 4 years, I am still waiting in vain.

I agree : not all homes have problems with high levels of radon build-up. But, at what level should we worry ? If it is as low as 100 Bq/M3 as
you suggest, than opening a window is OK… and not enough, because, first you need to leave it open quite long to evacuate. And second,you need to instal a small ventilator to extract the radon.
And don’t forget that radon also “climb” in walls
and stay there more easely (again, depending on the wall compound). I knew and practised all this
when I had clients’ requirements. I have no more
requests and the remediation business of radon in
Europe doesn’t make a living for the remediators.
Moreover, radon levels could “skyrocket” at night, in winter, in heavy storms, etc.
Just “opening a window” is a bit “simple minded”.
You need to add bars (do you want robbers to come in and radon to come out ?), ventilator, etc…
Well, you need to convince people that there is
a problem. And that’s far more difficult than the
remediation itsel !

I am not trying to convince you, Les. It’s just impossible. Don’t worry !
Holistic Chap

I wanna modify now this “L”

“Hollistic” returns…

I will not divert to other topics. Just one word about homeopathy and acupuncture (those “evil�? words to you): try to convince the multi million of “homeopathoholic�? people that it is not working because it is unproofed… or the one billion of Chinese that they waste their time for more than 2000 years !

I’ll do that just as soon as I get done convincing the 65,743,049 people* who believe they’ve been abducted by aliens and had probes shoved up their asses of the unlikely possibility of that having happened. In short, there are a lot of people who swallow a lot of stupid ideas as undeniable truth despite an overwhelming lack of evidence in support of it. Arguments from numbers isn’t proof of anything other than a lot of people believe something to be true.

For me, only acupuncture saved a paralysed leg.
No more comments !

And televangelist Peter Popov has healed millions with little more than a touch. Or at least he claimed to have done so until he was revealed to be a fraud. That doesn’t stop millions of his fans from continuing to believe he healed them nor has it kept him from getting back into the business of faith healing.

The WHO ? - I appreciate the WHO and I refer to them very often for their real expertise.
This said, I hope that their project will involve
every seriousness that we are expected to benefit from a scientific body.

As far as the figures about the numbers and rates of deaths from radon itself are concerned, I am ready to accept them as conclusive, providing that
somebody could explain these figures really scientifically… After 4 years, I am still waiting in vain.

The reports are available, probably more so for you if you are a qualified medical practitioner as you seem to be implying because undoubtedly you subscribe to a number of academic journals which would contain said information, right? It can be difficult for laymen to get a hold of such reports in full because journals tend to only offer them to members or subscribers and they don’t tend to come cheap.

Overall the EPA and the WHO seem to be reasonably competent organizations and that, in my mind, lends them some credibility.

I agree : not all homes have problems with high levels of radon build-up. But, at what level should we worry ? If it is as low as 100 Bq/M3 as
you suggest, than opening a window is OK… and not enough, because, first you need to leave it open quite long to evacuate. And second,you need to instal a small ventilator to extract the radon.
And don’t forget that radon also “climb�? in walls
and stay there more easely (again, depending on the wall compound). I knew and practised all this
when I had clients’ requirements. I have no more
requests and the remediation business of radon in
Europe doesn’t make a living for the remediators.
Moreover, radon levels could “skyrocket�? at night, in winter, in heavy storms, etc.
Just “opening a window�? is a bit “simple minded�?.
You need to add bars (do you want robbers to come in and radon to come out ?), ventilator, etc…

I never said opening a window was the ideal solution, I said it helps. Obviously the more severe the problem the more that needs to be done to rectify it. Any ventilation beats NO ventilation, though. I did point out, however, that it’s quite possible to both weather proof your home and have adequate ventilation at the same time.

As for adding bars, I suppose that depends on your locale. In all my years I’ve never lived in a home with bars on the windows, but then I’ve been fortunate to live in some relatively decent places.

Well, you need to convince people that there is
a problem. And that’s far more difficult than the
remediation itsel !

On this much we agree. It is difficult to convince some folks that this, and many other topics, are problems. I’m less concerned with convincing the True Believers in some of this nonsense that they’re being stupid as much as just getting the info out there for folks who haven’t swallowed the bullshit hook, line and sinker yet.

You’re perfectly free to roll around on broken glass and battery acid if you think it’ll help your gout, but by the same token I’m perfectly free to call you an idiot for doing so.

I am not trying to convince you, Les. It’s just impossible. Don’t worry !

Actually it’s not impossible to change my mind on topics I discuss here. There have been a number of issues that I have been convinced I was wrong about, but it takes more than arguments from numbers and anecdotes to convince me. Proponents of these ideas would do better with more comments like Christoph’s and fewer like yours.

^{* The estimated number of people who have been abducted by aliens, according to the folks who advocate this as a real event, is roughly 1% of the Earth’s population.}

“Holistic” back on a single “L” !

Well, we agree that it’s absolutely possible to combine isolation and ventilation in modern houses. The “bars” in front of windows are needed in too many places now… or something else dissuading entries from robbers. One can also dig circular holes in walls + an extracting FAN, but according to my own experiences, you need to calculate right both the numbers and diameters of holes, as well as the power of the fan .Again, it’s quite a large market for “remediators” like me, if the people got concerned, what they are not at this time.

I’ve lived in the early fifties for 6 years in Stamford, Connecticut. I was a little boy and I remember our neighbors were shocked when we locked our doors at night. Coming from Europe after WWII, we discovered a friendly America.
I wonder, if we could dare the same confidence in
the same neighborhood, today. Things have changed
so much in our world, alas (not to include Aliens
“en plus” !)

Your site is very clearly organized and I appreciate the qualities of people frequenting this topic. I wanna have a look at your other topics, as well.
Holistic “Fan”

Ventilation is not a big issue.  Put a bathroom exhaust fan in the basement, run the duct to the outside wall like a dryer duct.  Not to mention sealing the basement walls and floor.  It’s fairly widely recommended that you open your house up once or twice a year to let the air turn over and get rid of the chemicals that can accumulate in household air. 

Not to mention that exhaust fans in bathrooms are good to get rid of the excess humidity and keep mold at bay.  Plus, if you keep the doors closed, it’ll help exhaust the radon released from the water you’re cleaning yourself with.

I would like to answer to two of Les´ comments:

Les: “Again, you had me up until “homeopathy.�? Christoph’s contribution has once again piqued my interest in looking further into the ongoing studies of radon therapy as the summary at least sounds reasonable enough. I don’t deny there’s a possibility that radon therapy could be effective, but I still find the haphazard means of application somewhat dubious. I know of no other form of radiation therapy that consists primarily of telling folks to go sit in a room full of radiation for a certain amount of time. Most forms of radiation treatment are short term and carefully controlled to minimize the risks involved.”

Christoph:
1) radon therapy is carefully controlled. A prescription by a doctor who is familiar with the therapy is necessary (by law).
2) you can´t compare different applications of radiation just by comparing the time. The applied radon concentrations lead in many cases to lower doses than with other applications. From this point of view radon therapy is short (if you compare it for example to a live in a building with high concentrations). E.g. the average therapy in Gasteiner Heilstollen is 10x 1h in three weeks. So you can´t compare radon in homes (for a live) to a few hours radon therapy (with short applications of higher concentrations).

Les (citing WHO): “Although the average exposure to radon varies enormously, recent studies have shown that, when exposed to a radon concentration of 100 Bq (Becquerels)/m3, a non-smoker’s risk of lung cancer by age 75 years increases by 1 in a 1000 compared to non-exposed persons. Among those who smoke and are exposed to the same radon concentration, the risk of lung cancer is about 25 times greater. On a global level, tens of thousands of lung cancer deaths annually can be attributed to radon. Most of the radon-induced lung cancer cases occur among smokers. “

Christoph:
Did you ever think about the fact that researchers also sometimes get more money by “bad news is good news” ... building industry ... persons making business by measurements ...; there is almost nobody or no organisation (including myself) who does not have any kind of interests ...

So you can be sure all these studies and their conclusions (especially for the lower concentrations) are part of a big scientific discussion. I also know a lot about these studies and it would be possible to write a long list of critical comments.

But let me point out another fact assuming that above mentioned figures are “true”:

The average additional professional risk of a taxi driver is about 1 in a 1000 per year to die by an accident. A hypothetical (!!) risk of 1 in a 1000 in 75 years (for 100 Bq/m3) seems to be a “luxury risk”. Only really rich countries can afford to take legal action against them.

From my point of view it would be better to concentrate on homes with high concentrations of radon, there you get high doses of radiation during your live. It´s wasted time and money to fear 98% of the population (the number differs from country to country) living with concentrations lower than 100 Bq/m3.

In my home area we live with app. with 2 to 4 times higher (and in some homes even higher) concentrations. The last study about lung cancer risks end of the 1980s showed 50% of the Austrian average ... (yes I know, this study can be discussed).

I hope, Les, if you still doubt the effectiveness of radon therapy you are able to acknoledge that other things like risks of low level radiation are not prooved too. I think you can´t get 100% for everything in live ...

Regards from Austria

Christoph

P.S.: latest “Radon in homes"-studies: The risk is from smoking, compounded by a synergistic effect of radon for smokers. Without smoking, the effect seems to be so small as to be insignificant.

For smokers, the modification of their homes remains an option, of course, but they should at least be told that a more effective (and cheaper) way of avoiding the effect of radon is by not smoking.

About latest PS from Christoph : “Radon in homes"-studies: The risk is from smoking, compounded by a synergistic effect of radon for smokers”.

I believe he his damn’ right and that is going in favor of confirming my fears that some if not many “scientific” studies have joyously and definitively incorporated smokers and passive smokers in their studies
It should be a time consuming task, but reviewing protocols and means of some of these studies could show interesting gaps and negligences !

Now, could anybody comment on this ?
I have heard (from doctors and nutritionists in
Belgium, England and Ukraine) that the antioxidants compounds in different sorts of cabbages have some protective effects against radon, because these antioxidants have anti-cancerous action (this is quite certain) and they
have a protective action on the thyroid (sensitive organ when irradiation occur).

I am not an “Evil Devout of the Brussels’ Sprout”
and I know that eating too much cabbage produce “collateral counter-gases damages”,
meanwhile my above question is a serious one (as everything in this Blog).
 
Holistic Chap

I know that eating too much cabbage produce “collateral counter-gases damages�?

It’s about zero degrees f. here in Illinois… I could sure go for a hot bowl of cabbage soup.  Mmmmmm....

(/off-topic)

Come visit us here in Vienna, DoF.  It’s not quite that cold, and the cabbage soup is good...[/cabbage]

Mr. Muckerheide is a well known apologist for the nuclear industry. It is beyond beleif that he and other ignore the fact that radon is one of our leading environmental carcinogens -

http://www.aarst.org/radon_articles.shtml

That is crazy S.E.B.

I was looking for alternative therapies for treating bursitis. But I didn’t know just how alternative they got. Radon gas, geez......But the radium water sounds tempting..
http://www.bursitis-treatment.info/

Interesting thread LOL

SO my take on a synopsis LOL

Radon may help certain immune system diseases but the research is far from complete and while showing promise it is far from real proof in a clinical sense.

The drawback to the therapy is the possibility of developing a cancer down the road.  This is fairly remote chance for non-smokers but a smoker should steer clear of the radon gas.

Interesting that one of the main treatments for RA and AS now are the TNF drugs and a listed side effect is lymphoma cancer and/or drug induced MS. AKA Enbrel, Humira, and Remicade.  So you take a chance on cancer as well with an FDA approved treatment. These drugs also cost 20K to 70K per year and they only work for about 50% of those who try them.  For many without Insurance these are not even an option.

Interesting choice.