No video :(

Myths of Radon Part 1 of 4

Подписаться 1,2 тыс.

Просмотров 117 тыс.

50% 1

The myth of residential radon is explained in four parts. Part 1 deals with the basics of "radiation" in laymen's terms. The next Part, 2, is a crash-course in toxicology. Part 3 will provide "state-of-knowledge" epidemiology. Part 4 is a wrap up of what's really out there. I hope you enjoy Part One of my radon lecture.
FACTs has an ongoing law suit against the criminal activities of the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment - please visit our funding web site and donate what you can - even 10$ helps! Consider it a cup of coffee with a friend (or support of REAL science)! In the meantime enjoy the science! www.gofundme.c...
We present science for the real world!

Опубликовано:

26 авг 2024

Ссылка:

Скачать:

Готовим ссылку...

Добавить в:

Мой плейлист

Посмотреть позже

Комментарии : 214

@brandyroberts3733 4 года назад

This was INCREDIBLY helpful. My husband and I are dealing with a radon issue in our house. “36 pcpl “ is our consistent reading on our digital reader. Awesome job with this presentation. We need more professionals like you out there! My background is also in science and this was incredible “geek” time for me, well spent! Thank you!

@andrewmason631 4 года назад

36 pCi/l?

@josephbatten5620 4 года назад

Uh yeah that’s like 100x more Radon than the outside air.... not good

@Glasses5x 3 года назад

@@josephbatten5620 ...did you watch the video? 16:00 "pCi/L" is a measure of actions, not a measure of substance, let alone a measure of Radon. It's closer to a speed measurement(eg. mph) than a measure of matter. So, no, it's not "like 100x more Radon than the outside air"(which entirely depends on the location). Look here(www.forensic-applications.com/radon/reviews.html) at the 3rd paper he goes over. It's about a study conducted on data from "an area in Eastern Germany whose radon concentration is so high, that the normal OUTDOOR concentrations to which people are exposed, is HIGHER than most indoor readings on the North American Continent."

@acmichels1970 3 месяца назад

Fix your home!!

@RickDick1989 8 лет назад

Man, I sure am glad I found this. Just found it a little too late. We're trying to sell our house and we were required to have a radon test. We failed the test and now it's required to state that this home has high levels of radon, even though it's not even harmful as they say. I definitely learned from this and will definitely know all this for the future!

@indman101 7 лет назад

I never heard him say it wasn't harmful but only the testing wasn't accurate way of measure the gases that actually is harmful.

@cr4zyg047 7 лет назад

Exactly. He's not saying it ISN'T harmful - but that what little data is there does not support the "outrage" and fear mongering related to Radon. If radon is so dangerous - PROVE IT! The existing studies were on miners who smoked and inhaled many other toxic compounds - at the very least, there is no verifiable conclusion to make on this stuff. It's all a matter of how paranoid it makes you - and whether you'd rather have the piece of mind.

@101perspective 7 лет назад

Yeah, I was researching getting a mitigation system when I ran into this video. That's a big chunk of cash saved.

@johnnyk1686 6 лет назад

He did actually say Radon is not harmful and inert . . . a noble gas.

@jackjones3657 5 лет назад

Indeed, it's the "daughter elements" from radon, like palladium that are harmful. But since when does reality concern the EPA or other governmental authorities.

@financialadvisor1000 25 дней назад

This guy clearly knows what he’s talking about. I wonder after eight years if he still stands behind this presentation.

@ForensicApps 20 дней назад

Thank you for your question. Yes, the science hasn't changed, and Mr. Connell still supports the science. You can find his updated discussion here: www.forensic-applications.com/radon/radon.html

@larrymills619 5 лет назад

thank you very much for this excellent report. It saved me a bunch of money.

@nobylindz1594 3 года назад

What did you decide to do?

@truthjusticeintegrity 7 месяцев назад

Thank you for this presentation

@clutterpossum6557 4 года назад

So I have been worrying about my dusty basement with zillions of daughters hanging around...I hated the thought of vacuuming my basement! This lecture is so helpful, thank you so much.

@dougtheesfeild1564 Год назад

Very excellent presentation, thank you.

@jamesshepherd5805 7 лет назад

Did he say God sticks neutrons into the nucleus? Honestly, thank you for these videos. Very interesting, well explained

@ForensicApps 7 лет назад

James Shepherd : Yep

@tarnowek1 4 года назад

@@ForensicApps Too right !

@luisasipple9315 Год назад

The cost to test/remediate may sound like a waste of money (especially when it is strapped), but a cancer bill and a host of medical tests to decipher if you are or are not sick will/ may cost you more. Some regions across the USA have considerably higher levels than 4.

@daverudolph7777 4 года назад

People are concerned with one primary issue- is the presence of radon in high concentrations a risk to our health? This presentation has a lot of opinion, and most of the facts are extraneous to this question. Here's my question for the presenter- does the radon decay cascade represent a health hazard when it occurs inside a human body- especially in the lungs?

@ForensicApps 4 года назад

Hello Dave! "Yes" and "no" It depends on 1) the concentration of radon in the home; 2) the ER in the home; 3) the number of hours in the home each day and 4) the peak exposures during that time. However, for most homes with a "radon problem" - the answer is "no."

@hkennemer1 Месяц назад

I’m confused on the denial of activity concentration, it can be converted to activity and then effective dose can be determined in rem

@ForensicApps 19 дней назад

Hello! Thank you for your comments. This is a GREAT observation, so let me clarify. A "concentration" is a ratio of a definitive thing within another definitive thing. So, if I have a mixture of white crystals that weighs 1,000 grams, and 500 grams is salt and 500 grams is sugar, one could say I have 50% salt and 50% sugar. If I have 500 grams of each dissolved in one litre of water, one could say I have an 8.5 molar solution of salt and 1.5 molar solution of sugar. Either of these is a "concentration" since I have a definitive mass per definitive volume. Similarly, if I have acetone (a gas), and I'm at sea level on a room temperature day and I measure the mass of acetone in the air and determine I have 25 mg of acetone per m3 of air, the concentration of acetone is 25 mg/m3, or 10.5 parts of acetone per one million parts of air (that same concentration at my office at 8,600 feet elevation would be 12.5 ppm). Again, each is a "concentration" since we are addressing a definitive thing to another definitive thing. Armed with this, I can definitively define a "dose received" from that exposure. I weigh 90 kg. I will inhale about 0.8 m3 of air per hour. For ease of calculation, let's assume that for every 100 molecules of acetone I inhale, 50% of those molecule will enter my blood stream. So my "dose" of acetone received at 10.5 ppm will be (((25 mg/m3)*(0.8 m3/hour))*24 hours)/90 kg = 2.7 mg/kg/day. But now let's look at radon. If I measure radon in mass per unit volume, the same way I did with acetone, then I could express radon as "ppm" or "mg/m3." But whereas acetone remains acetone, radon does not remain radon - it is constantly decaying and so my "concentration" would be valid only for a moment in time and it would keep getting smaller and smaller. Similarly, we know the rate of decay of radon as a constant at large concentrations. This is known as the "activity." Activity is a verb, not a noun, and when an atom undergoes an internal loss and transforms into another element, that is a "decay." One unit of activity is one decay, and one decay per second is a "becquerel." So a becquerel is not a concentration because it is not a thing, it is an action. If I swing an hammer and hit a nail 25 times per minute in a box that is 1 m3, it can be said I have 0.41 hits per second per cubic meter- although this is true, it is NOT a concentration, but it IS analogous to a becquerel. If I have a starting point of X number of atoms of radon (say one mole) in a single unit volume of air, I have a known concentration, but that concentration is constantly falling, but at least I have a known amount of energy that will be released per unit time per unit volume. But that energy will be different depending on how I measure it. If I have two electrets, one with a membrane and one without, I will measure different energy signatures. Now, a REM (roentgen equivalent man) is not a real dose, it is an "equivalent dose," that is to say it is a stochastically effective estimate of biological risk from a potential energy source of ionizing radiation. It is not an actual "concentration" per se. One cannot automatically convert a "rad" to a REM because the conversion depends on relative biological effectiveness (RBE) of the particular ionizing radiation in question. For ease of mind, and ease of communication, one can be forgiven for speaking of picocuries per litre as a concentration, in the same way that one can be forgiven for speaking of say, fungal spores in air as CFUs/m3 or speaking of the structure of atoms using the Bohr Model. It is not true, it is not accurate, but it is a convenient convention, provided the speaker is ready to ensure that, if necessary, they understand that activity per unit volume is not a concentration. You comment was really great! I hope this helps.

@TheSman173 Год назад

Are continuous Radon measuring devices like the air things 2930 accurate?

@braden8737 5 лет назад

My neighbor was setting off the radiation detectors at work (nuclear power plant) after he moved into a new house. Like clock work every morning he set them off. His house was 3000 bqm3 I think (dont hold me to that number) anyways he installed a mitigation system and never had a problem again. What are your thoughts on that?

@jasenwhitney3146 4 года назад

It definetly causes cancer for sure why does this guy want to twist and turn what we already know

@aftech7268 Год назад

@@jasenwhitney3146 can explain how an old couple who lived in a radon home 30 parts per million never got lung cancer ? Do you know of anyone who got ling cancer from radon ?

@pocket83squared Год назад

@@aftech7268 A guy I know smoked for fifty years and never had a problem! That's called an _anecdotal_ argument. Cancer is the result of both genetic and environmental factors. Exposure to some things (things like radon and cigarettes) will dramatically increase a person's likelihood of developing cancer. Thus, we like to call these things 'cancerous'-which both radon and cigarettes MOST CERTAINLY ARE.

@Freebase2871 8 лет назад

Can you explain your sources for 22% oxygen causing blindness and 25% oxygen causing death? These oxygen levels are not toxic to humans. I regularly scuba dive with people who breath 32% and 36% oxygen, and the only risk I am aware of is breathing it under high pressure.

@ForensicApps 8 лет назад

+Jamie Salts Hello Jamie Salts! Thanks for the good question. I am in error in the comment - I think at the time I was harkening back to an old NIOSH SCBA gas tolerance, but I can’t find the reference to confirm. I tend to go into “auto-pilot” during some lectures, and one of my four hour courses used to be on respirators. I wonder if I may have been thinking of the Canadian version of Grade D air with O2 limits of 20-22% So, thanks for paying attention, and catching my mistake! (Pity you weren’t in the class, you could have get me straight!) Caoimhín

@organicvids 2 года назад

@@ForensicApps spoken like a true teacher.

@101perspective 7 лет назад

The good stuff starts at the very end of video 2. This other stuff in video 1 and most of 2 is still good to watch though if you have the time. Here is my understanding of what he says: 1) Most residential radon tests don't even test for radon and are highly/completely inaccurate. 2) Even if the readings are/were correct, odds are you not only don't need a radon mitigation system but that getting such a system might even increase your chances of cancer since studies show a certain amount of radon reduces odds of cancer... NOT increase it. Is that what others took away from this lecture?

@Seargent_Scraps 6 лет назад

Yeah that's pretty much what I got out of it, and that miners are the only ones that may be getting cancer from radon, but that's even hard to prove when they are exposed to so many other things underground.

@wabbott444 4 года назад

"getting such a system might even increase your chances of cancer"... I'll admit, I haven't watched all four, but, I get the gist I think. I also admit that I've bought into the hype already, and had a mitigation system installed. I have a digital meter that now bounces between 0.8 to 1.6 depending on the time of the year. At any rate, now reading I've potentially increased my families risk by mitigating the radon has thrown me for a loop. Putting aside "Pc/pl"s being a meaningless measurement, in theory, using a consistent measure of time, wouldn't dosage be assumed to be higher because the concentration is higher? I'm not sure what my meter is actually measuring,but, whatever it is the concentration of it seems to ebb and flow.

@nobylindz1594 3 года назад

Point one is correct - tests dont show much.. but those improve in time. Point two however no - if there are studies that havent proved a connection for wichever reason ( complex topic, other variables)in any way positive or negative your risk isnt 50/50 but exactly the amount of true value of risk .. could be alot could be little but as it stands ITS UNPROVEN. The best course of action is to see it as dangerous since we know radiation causes mutations in general

@101perspective 3 года назад

@@nobylindz1594 Yeah, I see your point. The problem here, however, is that if radon is also needed then removing too much of it could be harmful and thus shouldn't the default also be to not mitigate? Basically a standoff. That said, I could see a safe route of doing the mitigation but then getting necessary radon from other sources. I think he said that a banana has dangerous levels of radon according to the epa. So, maybe eat one of those from time to time? I did go out and try to debunk this video but even on sites claiming this was a myth they basically just repeat a gist of what he said in the video. Here is one such "debunk" claiming radon is dangerous. If you read carefully you will see that the only thing they could really find to debunk claims like in this video is that the epa and other agencies claim otherwise. ***** "To understand this first out of many radon myths, it’s important to first review some background. Namely, who is saying radon isn’t a problem? Many people in the lay community and even in the scientific community have claimed that radon is not an issue to worry about. For instance, a 1995 study from an American scientist named Dr. Bernard Cohen challenged the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) findings about radon, claiming that the EPA’s results had a fundamental flaw based on a misunderstanding of radon dosage. He basically says that just because very high levels of radon can lead to cancer, it is erroneous to think that means low levels of radon pose a risk. It’s hard to know who to listen to. The scientists making claims against the EPA could be whistleblowers alerting the community to a lapse in scientific judgment, so it is worth considering what they have to say. The World Health Organization helped us do just that by analyzing the 1995 study conducted by Dr. Bernard Cohen and publishing a neutral report. They found fundamental issues with the way he formulated his study: “Cohen’s geographical correlation study has intrinsic methodological difficulties (Stidley & Samet, 1993, 1994)” (WHO). What is more, in addition to the EPA, the Center for Disease Control, American Lung Association, and American Medical Association all agree that radon has a harmful effect on human health. Given the number of US and international institutions claiming radon is dangerous, and the fact that Dr. Cohen’s methods were questions by the WHO, it is reasonable to conclude that radon is indeed dangerous." ****** I plan to track down that 1993/94 study when I get time. Curious what it says.

@101perspective 3 года назад

@@wabbott444 Sorry, didn't see your post before. I suspect you are probably just fine. Even in these videos he indirectly admits you can get radon from other sources. It has been awhile but I'm pretty sure he said bananas have a lot of it in them. Like apparently even a dangerous level according to the epa radon claims. So, odds are your family is still getting plenty of it I bet. So, at worst you probably only wasted a little money. At best though he could be wrong and the epa right and you are saving your family. I'm not expert on any of this though... I just play one on RU-vid.

@aaronarchy11 6 лет назад

Caoimhin, Thank you for sharing this lecture and your insight. I'm hoping you can give me your input on the situation in my house. I recently purchased a 1950's ranch house in Detroit area with basement. The previous owner had installed a radon mitigation system in the basement (PVC pipes down into the slab with a fan in the attic that exhausts above the roof). My guess is it was installed as part of a real estate transaction, but I'm not sure. I discovered (after buying the house) that the basement gets water on the floor during a heavy rain. To remedy this I had a french perimeter drain put in all the way around the basement (they broke up the slab, put in a gravel bed with perforated pipe, and poured new concrete). However, this drain is not sealed against the wall as it is designed to allow water to seep through the block into the drain. After it was installed I noticed the pressure differential on the manometer attached to the radon system reduced significantly. There is still a slight negative pressure but not much. That said, I have read that there are instances where these systems can actually increase the radon in your home if not installed properly or if the pressure inside the structure is not right. Is there any merit to having it tested? Since I am in the process of finishing my basement and will be spending significantly more time down there I started to get more conscious about the potential radon build up, especially since the perimeter drain is basically an unsealed opening all the way around the basement. Any input is appreciated, thank you !

@ForensicApps 6 лет назад

Hello Aaron - Thank you for the comments. There are way too many variables in your comments to know whether or not the sub-slab depressurization system is still functioning as designed. You certainly could perform testing to determine current levels. I would recommend performing two tests, each of one year. In the first test, use an alpha-track device without a permeable membrane and let the device operate for one year. Place the device in the lowest frequently occupied room in the house. If the result is greater than 20 pCi/L, then turn off the radon mitigation system and redo the test. If the second result is the same, the system isn’t working. If the second result is greater than the first then the system is reducing the radon to at least some degree. If the second result is lower than the first, then the system is probably actually making things worse. Good luck!

@robertwilliams1473 2 года назад

I agree I do not want to put a hole in my below grade basement in the wet coast. I am on a hill and still have to check the drain tiles.

@cjtrickstar6060 2 года назад

You have to seal off your waterproofing system unfortunately

@elifarikan2119 2 года назад

Also how would we know if we are getting lung cancer not because of radon but because of asbestos or any paint which is basically colorful chemicals all around us?

@ForensicApps 2 года назад

Great question, Amerika’da Yaşam ! And, it's a question a lot of people are asking since the EPA numbers literally don't add up. When the EPA made its estimates (1986), they stated that approximately 85% of the 130,000 expected lung cancer deaths in the US were attributable to smoking. They then said that 20,000 of those deaths would be from radon induced lung cancer. But if 20,000 of those deaths are from radon, and the balance of 110,000 is from smoking, the EPA is effectively saying that NONE of the other carcinogens (such as asbestos or second hand smoke) are significant, and the EPA is stating the there are ONLY TWO causes of lung cancer: radon and smoking. Then, miraculously, the EPA actually increased that number without ever explaining where it came from and stated that 30,000 of the 130,000 expected lung cancer deaths were due to radon. It's easy to make up policy positions, when you are allowed to invent your own data, and nobody asks you where the number come from! Thanks for catching this!

@shark3136 6 лет назад

Quick FYI to viewers: a pico (pronounced “pee-co”) Or 10-12 describes 1/trillionth. Hence the 12 zeros.

@kedarhojn 3 года назад

Thank you for the great lecture and greetings from Czech Republic. After seeing your video I found out that my country is the source of the world’s largest cohort in a residential radon study done by the late communist regime. The data was “of course “ collected in a uranium mining area and you can imagine the subjects would be mostly miners. Funny to see how downward extrapolation predictions work in mysterious ways and I guess that is why the whole population must be burdened by mandatory radon measurements in all new and renovated buildings. Thanks for your detailed and insightful work

@dustinmfj 4 года назад

In Minnesota it’s State Law that Radon mitigation systems be put in, in all new construction.

@jackjones3657 5 лет назад

I wonder how much radiation, ELF radio waves, etc. I've been subjected to watching this on an iPad. I suppose I'll dig an underground shelter to live in, oh wait the ground emits the radon and dangerous daughter elements!

@michaelsavich9348 5 лет назад

Caoimhín P Connell would you put in a radon mitigation system in your house if the levels were reading higher than 10pCi/L ? A simple yes or no would suffice.

@ForensicApps 3 года назад

A simple "yes" or "no" isn't possible. Radon concentrations of 11 pCi/L and 80 million pCi/L are both greater than 10 pCi/L. I would install a mitigation system for the later but not the former.

@ForensicApps 3 месяца назад

@@neilaxelrod5872 Hello - Thank you for your comments and question. Your post indicates that you didn't watch the lecture, and are not too well versed with radon, radiation toxicology or risk assessment. Your post starts of with three assertions - all of which are myths and all are incorrect. 1) "…we have the data to show the increased risk of lung cancer as radon concentrations increase." That is not what the data show. You are relying on a myth known as the "linear, no-threshold, dose-response curve." According to this anti-scientific myth, there is a linear relationship between risk and dose received. The model has been known to be false even from the inception, and nobody, not even the US EPA thinks the model is an accurate or realistic model of risk. In fact, what the actual data shows is that, at radon levels commonly encountered in homes, as the dose goes up, the risk goes DOWN. This is known as an hermetic effect. The radon dose-risk curve is complex and your can read more about it on our website. 2) "No amount of radon is safe…" False. Again, this is a common myth due to the use of the anti-scientific, anti-data model called the LNT dose-response curve. 3) "…but the risk increases and the effects are more probable as radon concentrations increase in homes." False. Again (again), this is a myth based on an anti-scientific model that is not accepted by anyone (because it entirely fails to properly represent known facts). I recommend reading our discussion or watching the videos!

@ForensicApps 3 месяца назад

@@neilaxelrod5872 Hello Mr. Axelrod - It is clear that you have not viewed the videos (or you lack the technical competence to understand what is being said), and that you have not read our discussion (or indeed, any scientific literature regarding radon), and you don't understand risk, radiation or toxicology, and that you want to make up your own imaginary "science." However, the real world does not seek your approbation for existence, and real life will continue even if you don't want to believe in reality. We assume that you are a radon mitigation provider and therefore, you have a financial incentive to believe in fallacies and hope that others also believe in myths for your financial gain. The reality is that you have lodged multiple objections without providing even the slightest scientific evidence to support your false belief systems. Viewers interested in the science behind the radon scare, on the other hand, will find a multitude of scientifically valid references at our discussion here: www.forensic-applications.com/radon/radon.html

@justinbaker2883 8 лет назад

but by looking at the activity it can be assumed the level of concentration, average atomic decay is the constant. if y is amount bismuth, and x is concentration of radon, and z is rate of radon decay... y = xz, since z is known, learning what x or z should still be relevant.

@ForensicApps 7 лет назад

Hello! Well, if I get your comment, you would be correct if there were no other factors involved. However, there are three primary factors not accounted for in your assumption 1) the dynamic inflow (the constantly changing amount of radon entering the house); 2) the dynamic exfiltration (the amount of radon and SLRDs exiting the house); and 3) the equilibration ratio (the ratio of undecayed radon to SLRDs due to "plate-out"). Your comment otherwise would be correct if a known amount of radon was placed in a small box with no airflow, and wherein SLRDs could not plate-out. Then, Nt = N0e-λt -Where N0 is the initial quantity; Nt is the quantity that still remains after a time t, t1/2 is the half-life; τ is the mean lifetime; λ is the decay constant.

@cr4zyg047 7 лет назад

I'm assuming this is where some of that +- 90% accuracy comes from.

@Redspeciality 23 дня назад

I’m not sure how long I would have stayed in my university chemistry class if the professor had told me that God packs in more neutrons around the nucleus.

@organicvids 2 года назад

Are these detectors ie safety siren pro series 3 effective? Whaaat radon decays to stable isotope of lead?

@RiffMaker Год назад

I haven't gone through all 4 parts of your lecture yet so I apologize if this was answered within that content. I recently started monitoring the radon levels in my basement and they seem to fluctuate between 3.10 - 4.35 pci/l. Me and my family spend a decent amount of time down there as it's a finished basement. Would you recommend I have a system installed to bring those numbers down?

@thaliaivana1657 6 лет назад

thankyou for the lecture , love from indonesia:)

@Courtney_268 6 лет назад

Need a TL:DR

@Glasses5x 3 года назад

LOL! This actually IS the TL,DR! It's a condensed version specifically for Realtors.

@ingmarlindholm Год назад

Absolutely excellent 🙏

@ML-ti7zr 2 года назад

@caoimhin p connell I'm dumb. Whether radon is good/bad/neutral, I've had a "professional" tester come and do a 2 day test in the finished part of the basement of the house and had a 2.7 pCi/L average. Not sure if it warrants the installation of a mitigation system. I am wondering if opening windows would be enough to reduce radon gas and any potential harmful effects (if any) that may come from it? Also, does opening windows dilute VOC like benzene? Thanks!

@grantv2313 8 месяцев назад

The amount of radon in your house constantly fluctuates. That’s why it’s measured over time. Usually months, to get an average. Opening windows will air out the house, but concentrations can build up during the winter months when windows are closed and the warm air in your house draws up the radon through the cracks.

@tleander40 2 года назад

Absolutely fascinating!!!

@KHtally Год назад

Ok so based on this is the relatively new Radon rush by home inspectors a scam?

@financialadvisor1000 7 месяцев назад

He says radon is not a risk, but the byproduct of radon is a risk so you breathe in the radon and it turns into something toxic once it’s in you so breathing and radon is not good

@KHtally Год назад

Where's the layman's terms video?

@karhukivi 5 лет назад

The "bismuth" referred to is Bi214 which is a direct decay product of radon-222. Radon 222 decays by alpha emission to Po218, another alpha emitter, and then to Pb214, yet anothr short-lived alpha emitter, and then to Bi214 which is a beta particle emitter. Radon detection systems either measure the alpha particles from Rn222, Po218 and Pb214, or the gamma radiation from Bi214. Radon 222 is the precursor to all these other daughters. The fact that Mr Connell is clearly unaware of these well-known and proven facts casts doubt on everything else he says.

@clarksnell 4 года назад

Sorry that you are so dismissive of Mr. Connell. I have been a science educator all of my adult life and I have said many things that didn't communicate what I was trying to say clearly. I have checked his sources and as best I can tell he is repeating correctly the research. This talk is supposed to be for the general public and when we try to teach those with less formal technical educations we will invariably state things that are not 'fully' true. This is not because we are trying to deceive but because we don't want to drive our audience away from listening by giving them the entire story. The entire story in science is nor fully known so we simplify so that we can communicate better not to deceive.

@karhukivi 4 года назад

@@clarksnell If it is for the general public, then he should be at least correct in what he says. For example, he states (11:50) that radium is very soluble in water, in fact it is not. At 12:20 he says radon doesn't dissolve in water, in fact it is 8x times more soluble in water than air. Then he says you could breathe 80% concentration of radon with no biological effects, this is absurd - radon might be chemically inert but it is not biologically inert. Then at 17:16 he says that "pico-Curies per litre" are not a measure of concentration, they are. He then gets into a discussion of dose, but this is not measurable as we don't know how much radon progeny get into the lungs. I don't know what his agenda is but he is misleading his audience either deliberately or by lack of his own knowledge. I do agree that the risks of radon may be overstated at the levels considered "threshold" and in comparison to other risks, the amount of money spent on radon mitigation does seem out of proportion. However, this does not justify misinforming the public.

@ForensicApps 3 года назад

Hello Mr. Reynolds - I'm sorry you're confused, and didn't like the lectures. You need to understand the context of the lectures and understand the target audiences. For this particular lecture, the audience is Realtors, who have a total of about 90 minutes and are being given an awareness class on the subject matter. The intent is not to produce radiation safety officers or Masters of Science in Environmental Toxicology, etc. As a radiation Safety Officer for some 16 years and an Industrial Hygienist for over 30 years, Mr. Connell is pretty well versed in the subject matter, and correctly stated that some of the radon detectors utilize bismuth as the surrogate for estimating radon concentrations. At 0.01 mol kg −1 bar −1 the solubility of radon in water is relatively low. Radium is moderately soluble in water (radium226 and radium228 being roughly equally soluble). Since radium can enter ground water by dissolution and desorption from sediment surfaces, the lesson being taught is that radium is mobile in water and radon "wants" out of water. If I were be overly precise, I would have to spend the first eight hours of a 90 minute lecture discussing partition coefficients, Henry's Law, and other such parameters. The Realtor would have taken nothing away from such an endeavor. I do say that breathe 80% concentration of radon with no biological effects. The statement is correct within the context it is said. Radon, being a noble gas IS biologically inert. I'm afraid you will not be able to overcome the reality of that statement, but similarly you will not be able to produce a single example of a biological system in which radon interacts. You are correct that I also say that "picoCuries per litre" is not a measure of concentration, for the simple reason that is picoCuries per liter is NOT a concentration. Concentration is the relative amount of a given substance contained within a solution or in a particular volume of space. A Cuie is 3.7 × 10^10 disintegrations per second. Therefore, Curies are actions, a disintegration is activity. By analogy, if I had a concentration of 100 children per acre of playground, that would be a concentration. If the children were running, one could not say there was a "100 runnings per acre" or 45.5 jumpings per acre" (could one have an half a jump?) Curies are activity and that activity is itself constantly changing and therefore, cannot be stated as a concentration. Furthermore since the concentration of a given radioactive material in a given space is constantly in decline without knowing more than just the pCi per volume, one would not be able to derive the concentration of the source material. You are incorrect when you say "He then gets into a discussion of dose, but this is not measurable as we don't know how much radon progeny get into the lungs." I'm not sure where you have invented your "facts" but you can't back them up. Dose is derivable from knowing the both the attached and unattached factions as well as other parameters such as time, breathing rates, body weight, etc. Apparently you have no concept of dose. I can't help that. So, since you're not able to identify anywhere in the lecture that misinformation is being provided, one would have to question your agenda.

@josietannehill4673 10 месяцев назад

What formal education does he have? He has no professional degree that I’m aware of

@Seargent_Scraps 6 лет назад

Hey Mr. Connell, I have a question. Do you think that they can even prove that miners are getting cancer from radon? It's my understanding that they are exposed to much more than just radon and it's sisters, and it can be very difficult at times to prove causation when it comes to something like cancer.

@ForensicApps 6 лет назад

Hello Bill - great question. It’s an apportionment of risk but it assumes that the addition of two insults is merely the summation of those two insults (2+2=4) and not synergistic - the multiplicative effects of an insult (2+2= 16), and antagonism - the cancelling effects of two or more insults (2+2= 1). As you point out, the miners were actually exposed to nickel, chrome, diesel exhaust, asbestos, high dust loadings, lead, and a large portion of the miners smoked cigarettes. Additionally, the non-occupational exposures as well as the health considerations of the miners is difficult to assess. Therefore, there is no way to actually know the etiological agent exactly, but one may surmise that the individual components all contributed to the overall risk. As such, if we studied gas station attendants from the 1920s through the 1970s and observed an elevated incidence of cancer, depending on the end point (mesothelioma and, say leukemia), we can attribute the risk to asbestos (in the brakes and other automobile components), and benzene in the gasoline, respectively. Epidemiological models try to correct for these issues with varying degrees of success, and can remain debatable by honest scientists who will usually admit the limitations on the correction. It’s for this reason that the attributable risks so often are expressed in orders of magnitude. Great question - thanks for posting!

@Seargent_Scraps 6 лет назад

Thanks for the reply! Great answer, very thorough.

@petersimpson9019 6 лет назад

Caoimhin, what about the miners who didn't smoke but developed lung cancer that lived with a spouse that smoked or grew up in a house with parents that smoked. Back then, they didn't know second hand smoke causes lung cancer. Even more doubt to add to the study that the EPA bases it's policy on.

@josephbatten5620 4 года назад

When a framer frames a house, does he need to be a structural engineer first? Does he need to be able to calculate the load for the bearing walls? The clear answer is NO. Why would you hold a Radon mitigation contractor to a higher standard? They are following EPA guidance, just as most trades follow the guidance of building codes.

@ForensicApps 4 года назад

Hello Mr. Batten: The video is an educational video for the general population - it is not directed at radon mitigators or their facilities. However, having said that, in our experience, most radon testing and mitigation companies are not following the EPA guidelines. When the guidelines first came out, participants could actually get de-listed from the program if they did not follow the EPA guidelines. However, the EPA no long maintains the program, and in most states, contractors operate at their leisure, and VERY often provide technically poor information, poor sampling techniques, and very often install systems that would not meet the EPA guidelines. For example, we even had a case where a mine operator needed an MSHA exposure assessment for their mine, and the work was taken on by a home radon guy who thought he knew all about radon and human exposures, and so he went into the mine and placed a bunch of residential radon devices in the mine. Fortunately, the mine operator was not fined, but the radon guy came close to losing his business through a civil law sui t.

@cinoeye 7 лет назад

Hope you can give me an answer-if green energy efficient airtightair houses have higher level of radon, why are the close conditions required for radon testing?

@ForensicApps 7 лет назад

The first part of the question is predicated on an unfounded assumption. The testing protocol was NEVER designed to be used to test for radon in a single home. The testing protocol was designed to standardize a testing protocol for the collection of data from thousands of buildings by hundreds of personnel. When the EPA came out with its Radon Certification program, it did want to develop a new protocol that would be appropriate for an individual to use to determine the actual concentration of radon in a single home - so, it merely “copied and pasted” the protocol that was applicable only when used for the collection of data from thousands of buildings. There is nothing scientifically valid about the testing protocol currently being used.

@peterhayes3712 7 лет назад

Great info Caoimhin. 1. How can I obtain the other 3 parts of the presentation pls. 2. Do I abandon my radon testing job based on what you are saying? I am measuring Beg/M3 (based on Health Canada standard of 200 beq/M3) with digital Airthings tester from Norway/& 3 month+ tester sent to lab, and mitigating with radon fan & external venting.

@ForensicApps 7 лет назад

Hello Mr. Hayes - All of the links to the videos are found on our radon discussion page: www.forensic-applications.com/radon/radon.html And we addressed your other question here: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-TYZglUjLE0Y.html&feature=gp-n-y&google_comment_id=z12nfdzzblqrurjgs04cgbgrzybtutrw2tc0k

@Sam-cc5dz 7 лет назад

You have explained nicely the differences between X-rays and Gamma rays but the main difference is mode of origin of those rays. Gamma rays originate from the nucleus of a radionuclide after radioactive decay whereas X-rays are produced by outer nuclei activity when electrons are rearranged.

@ForensicApps 7 лет назад

Thank you for your input!

@peterhayes3712 7 лет назад

Over 7 days, I carefully measured radon next to our water main intake well cupboard with 2 different 'radon' testers (Prolab & Digital Airthings). The results were: daily average 3,200 beq/m3 & 7 day test of 3,400 beq/M3. This is very high. A. Should we be concerned about this high measurement, as my teen daughter lives in the basement bedroom right next to this area?? B. I have a family of 6 (5 daughters) and am self-employed as a radon tester, with little employment options where we live. Should I abandon my profession, which i have been passionate about, or is there a way to modify my profession to maintain my professional integrity? Pls respond ASAP.

@ForensicApps 7 лет назад

Hello Mr. Hayes - Thank you for your comments. As a “radon teste,r” you understand why it’s important to return to the basics: 1) You never measure the radon in your home, 2) You measured the PAEC within an established environment (the test chamber, not the house) and therefore, 3) You never performed an human exposure assessment. Therefore, the values you have mentioned here, independent of the epidemiology, can not be used to express human exposures in your home or to calculate risk. An analogy of what you have done would be: “I measured extremely high levels of gasoline in the spare gas-can in my garden shed. Am I in danger of contracting leukemia in my house as a result of benzene exposure?” Ultimately, I think your question is a business and employment decision, and we can’t help you make that decision.

@peterhayes3712 7 лет назад

I am grateful for your insight and prompt comments. My priority as you can appreciate is the health of my teen daughter living in the basement. So, to understand your kind response, that fact that I have measured 3,400Beq/M3 in her cupboard (and moderately lower levels also tested in her bedroom, at desk and bed level) is inconsequential to her exposure to radon and associated health, correct? Put another way, can I with confidence rule out radon risk as a health hazard (I saw all 4 parts to your very informative presentations, but did not fully grasp the health implications - read: 'radon is not a health hazard.' ??. Pls help me put my concerns to rest. Also, would you pls suggest another similar source that debunks the radon myth that radon adversely impacts human health. Many many tks.

@cr4zyg047 7 лет назад

He's simply saying that the evidence does not support the "conclusions" that so many people have drawn about Radon exposure. There's a complete lack of data (and what data exists mainly pertains to smoking mine workers) which shows causation. He cannot tell you that Radon is "safe" in any amount - simply because the data is lacking. However, what data does exist does seem to suggest that Radon exposure isn't as high of a threat as others would have you believe. They also believe that smokers are far more susceptible to radon-related lung cancer (how they know RADON caused those cancers and not the smoking - I have no idea) - which just goes to show that they're somewhat clueless.

@Ghahn777 8 лет назад

I'd like to believe you and it would be a great relief for me - but as you try to discredit the measurement of picocuries of radon in determining the risk of radioactive molecules from the kits - you don't mention that the picos that are measured are the radioactive units whether bismuth or polonium other daughters. What matters to me is the harm any of these can cause.

@ForensicApps 8 лет назад

+Geoff Hahn Hello Mr. Hahn - Thank you for your comment. You comment is based on the false premise that the “picos” (as you call it) are harmful. As discussed in my videos - the premise is unsupported. I suggest you watch the entire series of videos! Thanks again for your comments!

@deborahd.6228 Год назад

Thank you! I know simply Google searching ( or any search engine for that matter) using 'radon map usa' reveals much of Northern USA as radon 'hot' Now, with that being true, exactly why aren't cancer rates higher percentage wise in those areas vs. those with very little and of those who do get lung cancer( the cited radon caused disease) why do they succumb vs. the majority who don't? Is it genes, nutrition, or a combination?

@bobkeeler5964 4 года назад

What is this guys name? Does he have any books or literature out there? I would love to spread the word about the science of Radon gas but need the info to get it out there

@ForensicApps 3 года назад

The speaker is Caoimhín P. Connell, Forensic Industrial Hygienist with Forensic Applications, Inc. (See www.forensic-applications.com).

@KitkatJohn 8 лет назад

I have enjoyed your lectures on youtube. You are very thorough. I look forward to any future videos. I was wondering if you have talks on Asbestos that you can post to you youtube? I recently had my Mom's apartment abated. The testing figures and danger levels seemed exaggerated. I would love to hear your take on what Asbestos is, why it's harmful and what real dangers exist.

@cr4zyg047 7 лет назад

Not every environmental "threat" is a hoax. Asbestos is a well studied carcinogenic - tens of thousands of people who've worked with the stuff, without protection, dying of lung cancer. They've studied the mechanisms by which the asbestos fibers get lodged in your lungs and stay in there until your body inevitably generates cancerous tissue.

@ForensicApps 7 лет назад

Hello Kitkat - thank you for your comments. Mr. Kennedy is correct. The deleterious health effects of many of the asbestos minerals have been known for centuries. Pliny the Elder described asbestosis and mesothelioma in about 40 AD (I don’t recall the actual year), and he even described a “respirator” to be used to mitigate the exposures. So, like radon, the risk associated with asbestos are extremely well documented, and very well understood. Similarly, like radon, the risks and exposure issued have been simplified for practical purposes. In the case of asbestos, although there are about 74 mineral classifications of “asbestos” (some of which are powerful carcinogens, and some of which are noncarcinogenic), the least hazardous are lumped in with the most hazardous. This is a practical solution to the problem created by different degrees of carcinogenesis, mixtures, applications in construction etc. I addressed some of these issues in 2016 in a little blurb called “Asbestos Soup.” You may enjoy reading it - www.forensic-applications.com/misc/Asbestos_soup.pdf

@Glasses5x 3 года назад

@@ForensicApps Re: "So, like radon, the risk associated with asbestos are extremely well documented"... Did you mean to say "UNlike" Radon? I thought the premise of your whole position on the Radon industry was that the risk so widely associated with Radon is NOT well documented. Thus your statement that it is is confusing to me. :S

@Marlene837 6 лет назад

It started off as good but by part 4 he lost my respect. He started off confirming that dose is important, that 100 pico curies per litre are OSHA enforceable standards then goes off saying that these rates above aren't found in homes. I've read the EPA info on radon stating the actionable rate of radon is 100 pCi/l. I've never heard of 4 pCi/l. What about the Canadian standard of 200 Bq/sqm? I have 4 family members that have been exposed to radon and have had cancer. Two died. One of lung cancer the other by a rare adenocarcinoma. The local health unit didn't use any form of science to confirm the radon dose and the correlation of the cancers even though they blamed the lung cancer on radon. The only measurable radon rate in 2015 was 100 Bq/sqm. That doesn't say anything about higher rates that we could have been exposed to from 1962 until that recent and only test. The area I grew up has a higher rate of lung cancer than the whole province of Ontario. If there are 4 cancers from persons exposed to radon in the same home, is that not a strong and consistent correlation?

@ForensicApps 6 лет назад

Hi Marlene! Thank you for your comment. Somehow, you have become completely confused and turned around. So let me try and disentangle things a bit for you. “It started off as good but by part 4 he lost my respect. He started off confirming that dose is important, that 100 pico curies per litre are OSHA enforceable standards then goes off saying that these rates above aren't found in homes.” OK- Dose IS important. 100 pCi/L is a concentration, not a dose. The OSHA enforceable Standard is only enforceable in workplaces where there is an employer/employee relationship not a home. I never said that concentrations of 100 pCi/L are never found in house. Pico Curies per liter are not a rate, it’s a concentration. “What about the Canadian standard of 200 Bq/sqm?” There is no Canadian standard of “200 Bq/sqm” and if there was, it is not a dose, and neither is it associated with OSHA, since OSHA standards are not enforceable in Canada. It is probable you are trying to reference Bq/m3, which is also not a dose. “I have 4 family members that have been exposed to radon and have had cancer. Two died. One of lung cancer the other by a rare adenocarcinoma.” Actually, ALL of your family members have been exposed to radon, and the majority of them have NOT died of cancer and neither will they. ALL of your family members will die, regardless of the amount of radon to which they have been exposed. Approximately one third of all your family members will develop cnacer regardless of the radon dose they receive. People die of lung cancer regardless of radon exposures. Adenocarcinomas are not generally associated with radon exposures. “The local health unit didn't use any form of science to confirm the radon dose and the correlation of the cancers even though they blamed the lung cancer on radon.” Health Departments employ some very silly people who can do some very silly things. They could just as easily have blamed the cancers on the Russians - but that doesn’t make it so. “The only measurable radon rate in 2015 was 100 Bq/sqm.” There is no such thing as a rate of radon whether expressed as Bg/sqm or any other unit. “If there are 4 cancers from persons exposed to radon in the same home, is that not a strong and consistent correlation?” No, because: It’s not a correlation, so it cannot be a “strong and consistent” correlation or otherwise. Furthermore, EVERY person in Ontario is exposed to radon. EVERY person in Ontario will die. Every person in every house WILL die regardless of the radon concentrations to which they are exposed. I hope this helps, but I’m afraid that you are so completely confused, that this will not be helpful.

@dennislynch3131 Год назад

There are no test to detect radon in the human body.

@indman101 7 лет назад

So why is Radon gases said to be the leading cause of Lung Cancer in non smokers by the Health Care of America?I have an older home with a basement and sump shouldn't the sump area have a radon fan on it venting these gases outside?

@ForensicApps 7 лет назад

1) You ask: "So why is Radon gases said to be the leading cause of Lung Cancer in non smokers by the Health Care of America?" Answer: It isn't. 2) Answer to second question: No.

@gailgrant1703 5 лет назад

I rescinded an offer on home as it tested high for radon. Folks, test your homes.

@Glasses5x 3 года назад

@@gailgrant1703 Dang, you missed out. It didn't test "high for radon" and the numbers they gave you were data they didn't truly understand simply because they left you thinking that they were testing for a noble gas: Radon. Watch the video & check the studies he cites. (www.forensic-applications.com/radon/radon.html)

@Glasses5x 3 года назад

@@ForensicApps Re:"Answer: It isn't." While I believe you when you say it's not the leading cause of Lung Cancer in non-smokers, J Lee asked why it's SAID to be. J's asking why so many people, including the "Health Care of America," seem to think it is(something you acknowledge). I think you've already answered this question in your content on Radon: Fear. That's my interpretation of J's question so it seemed, judging by your answer, that you interpreted it differently. I could be wrong, but I don't currently think I am.

@adamkalman6011 6 лет назад

I like to put Radon on my asbestos sammichs

@jimwhite537 6 лет назад

I'll admit I'm lost with the scientific formulas and parts per something, just the same I have some thoughts to share on Radon testing and mitigation. From part 1 of 4 videos what I heard is that a home in the US with an average two day radon test score of 4 or higher is "suggested" by the EPA" to be remediated. That the level of 4 or higher is NOT a law, standard or statutary requirement. Absent of that EPA suggestion, what would be an alarming or acceptable limit? I don't know. So this is my position. There are MANY actions and inaction's we with the greatest intellect on Earth take in our daily lives, many we don't always agree with, others we don't fully understand. While a case for questioning the necessity for radon remediation, this lecture is based on a good deal of theory as well and suggests a very questionable reaction to testing. I believe I am correct that Mr. Connell said that a home with a reading of 4 and another with a reading of 2.9, the home with the 2.9 reading may be more harmful. So, here is the meat of my position. I wear a seat belt MOST of the time but I have great confidence in my driving skills, both offensively and defensively. Just the same there is that POSSIBILITY someone may loose control of their vehicle at a rate that I just can't avoid, so I take that precaution. IT GIVES ME PEACE OF MIND! In the states, my experience is that new home construction is not tested for radon. Yet, upon the first resale the buyer often places a contingency on the purchase agreement that the property pass a radon test with the two day exposure rating less than 4. If the results are 4 or higher, the seller will be asked to arrange and pay for remediation. Should the seller refuse, the purchase agreement can be voided, or the buyer can waive that contingency and either ignore the results or have the mitigation done at their own expense. This brings up a couple interesting thoughts for me. First, it is common that a family who buys a home that has never been tested may live in that home for twenty years or more. Upon its sale at that time, based on a high radon test, the seller may be required to have installed and pay for radon mitigation that will at the very least provide PEACE OF MIND for the new buyer while it may cause unrest and uncertainty to those who had lived in the home for all those years without it. At the age of 66, I have owned and sold more than my share of homes, at least five (5) were tested for radon, none were at or above 4. I am currently in a ten year old home in northern Ohio that was just tested this week with a rating of 4.6. We will do a remediation, soon, very soon. In closing let me share some of the comments I've been told by radon testers: That once you test for radon it will never change. Not true by the tester I used this past week. He says the EPA suggests a test every two years and his "thought" was that if there were a major ground disturbance near your home the readings can be greater. Like a new home being built in closer proximity.

@jimwhite537 6 лет назад

Sorry, that got away from me. Here is the conclusion: In closing let me share some of the comments I've been told by radon testers: A radon tester I contracted in 2010 said that once you test for radon it will never change. Not true, according to the tester I used this past week. He says the EPA suggests a test every two years, he thought every three or four would be adequate. Simple math indicates that within twelve years of testing the remediation could have been paid for; he also suggested that ratings are frequently higher during the winter months (no idea about the relevancy of that); and his "thought" was that if there were a major ground disturbance near your home the readings can be greater. Like a new home being built in closer proximity. You know, my thought is, there is nothing so precious as the life, safety and health of those I love. That the cost of a radon test generally $170. to $185., will give me two things. An understanding of where my home is in relation to the EPA suggestion of lower than 4 and whether the cost of mediation, unless my reading were say 2 or less, would give me the PEACE OF MIND knowing any fluctuations in the radon levels entering my home would be mitigated as long as we live there. As well, I would know that I will not, upon leaving that home, potentially pay for the PEACE OF MIND of its new occupant, someone I don't even know.

@veritas6335 4 месяца назад

Overwritten. You don't need to say the same thing ten times to get your point across.

@cesarj258 5 лет назад

I'm in the process of purchasing a house. The inspection for radon came up with 55 pi/LT. We are looking for a remediation system to recommend the seller to install to continue the process of purchasing. We are wonder if any of the systems of the market can drop the level of random to a safety levels. Could you advice us base on your professional expertise? Thanks

@Glasses5x 3 года назад

Seems like you didn't watch the video or listen to what he's saying. Watch the whole thing & check out his discussions on the website.

@johnstinnett6624 4 года назад

At 4:05 did he really say "God sticks in more and more neutrons" ? Really?

@ForensicApps 4 года назад

Yes he did, and it was neither symbolic speech nor a metaphor. For a closer look at some of Mr. Connell's thoughts on this, you may enjoy reading his "Balls to Metaphysics" here: www.forensic-applications.com/misc/Mental_Meanderings_5_Pool_and_Cosmos.pdf

@liveuntetheredmusepodcast4832 4 года назад

Why is that strange to you? Should he of said Bugs Bunny?

@TheDanielShepherd 3 года назад

@@liveuntetheredmusepodcast4832 At least Bugs Bunny exists.

@haydenbarrow9603 3 года назад

can this affect light bulbs in its path ?

@ForensicApps 3 года назад

Hello Mr. Barrow- I'm not sure I understand your question. Could you elaborate?

@haydenbarrow9603 3 года назад

@@ForensicApps say radon gas accumulated in an area could it cause interfarence with a light bulb circutry or can it be that concentrated to affect it ?

@ForensicApps 3 года назад

@@haydenbarrow9603 Hello Me. Barrow. No, radon is a chemically inert gas. Also known as one of the noble gases, radon does not interact with much of anything. for example, it doesn't corrode wiring or interfere with any electrical devices or mechanical devices in any way, and does not even interact with biological entities such as animals or plants. Similarly, there is no way for radon to accumulate, or concentrate in devices such as light bulbs.

@haydenbarrow9603 3 года назад

@@ForensicApps ok thanks for the response

@rogerchampion4493 4 года назад

We have about 150 grams of potassium in our body that is 0.0117 K40 which is radioactive. We do not have 150g of radioactive potassium unless you're treating radioactivity as a general trait of potassium as an element which is misleading considering you could also say "our body has X amount of radioactive Hydrogen or Y amount of radioactive Carbon" and so on as well and your statement would lose any significance

@ForensicApps 3 года назад

Hello Mr. Champion - Thank you for your comments. If you are an average sized adult, you have about 150 grams of potassium in your body right now. You are correct that only some of the potassium is radioactive, and that is given. Also given is that not all of the radioactive potassium "goes nuclear" all at once. As you sit and read this email, you are irradiating about 4,400 Bq (120,000 pCi) of just K40, (that equates to about 4,400 radioactive disintegrations per second). The potassium in our bodies is generally in a steady-state, and corresponds to an annual effective dose of about 0.2 mSv. I'm not sure what of the content of the criticism, but it appears that you believe that I didn't adequately discuss the differences between K40 and stable isotopes.

@rogerchampion1952 3 года назад

@@ForensicApps There is a slide that says "You have about 150 grams of radioactive potassium in your body right now" (around the 26:30 mark on the video) My thinking is that that is easy to misinterpret for people with no background knowledge on this subject.

@valerieagnew5224 4 года назад

Why aren't these people held accountable

@andrewmason631 4 года назад

At 20 minutes in I had a few things about this. Early on you mentioned how radon is not harmful and then now you are saying pCi/l doesn't measure radon so you dont know the risk. The machine measures the decay rate. like you said its the daughter products are what is harmful so thats what is being measured. So far I find this to be very misleading. I watched 10 more seconds and he said a house with lower pCi/l could be more harmful then a house with higher. But i thought radon wasn't harmful? This guy is a joke

@ForensicApps 4 года назад

Hello Mr. Mason - I'm sorry you so poorly understood what was being said and heard many things that were't actually said at all. So, let me help you out a little. Andrew Mason: "Early on you mentioned how radon is not harmful …" FACTs response: No. That was never said anywhere in the video series. We have never said that, and we don't hold that position. However, radon is similar to the carbon monoxide in the air, it is everywhere at small concentrations. Until such time that the carbon monoxide reaches a certain concentration, there are no deleterious effects. And so it is with radon. Andrew Mason: "…and then now you are saying pCi/l doesn't measure radon so you dont know the risk." FACTs Response: That is almost correct, but it doesn't have anything to do with the preface of your comment. We actually DO know the risks, however, that risk cannot be confidently determined from the "results" used by the radon testing companies. Andrew Mason: "The machine measures the decay rate." FACTs: response We don't know which "machine" you are referring to. However, none of the devices we discuss in our video measure the decay rate. The decay rate is something that is already established and doesn't change. Andrew Mason: "… like you said its the daughter products are what is harmful so thats what is being measured." FACTs: Response Not necessarily correct. Very often some of the measuring devices will only measure the SLRDs from a filtered air sample, and not from the actual SLRDs that are in a residence to which the occupant is being exposed. Those are two VERY different entities. Andrew Mason: "… So far I find this to be very misleading." FACTs Response: Yes, since you have not understood anything that has been presented, and misinterpreted what you think is being said, I can see why you think it may be misleading. Andrew Mason: "I watched 10 more seconds and he said a house with lower pCi/l could be more harmful then a house with higher. But i thought radon wasn't harmful? FACTs Response: You comment lack any kind of intelligible logic. It's like saying "Vitamins aren't harmful but getting fewer vitamins is more harmful, but I thought you said 'vitamins aren't harmful'"? I wonder if you have any idea of how convoluted and distorted your comment was? I hope this helps. Perhaps if you go back and actually listen to what is being said, you will have a better understanding of what is being said.

@gatsbylight4766 4 года назад

@@ForensicApps - I actually liked the video. However, _facts are facts_ - so here are the facts: *Andrew Mason* says: _"Early on you mentioned how radon is not harmful …"_ *FACTs response:* _"No. That was never said anywhere in the video series. We have never said that, and we don't hold that position."_ *What's in the video:* _"Radon is _*_toxicologically inert; radon is 100% safe,_*_ because radon cannot interact with the human body in any way. Radon is what's known as a noble gas. A noble gas is a gas that will not react with any other material."_ *_"So, for a start radon is not the issue._*_ You could breathe an atmosphere of 80% radon - as long as there was about 20% oxygen in there, and then a smattering of CO2 to take care of blood chemistry - _*_but radon itself is completely 100% biologically inert._* . *Gatsby Light* concludes: Ya did kinda give the impression that *"radon is 100% safe"* ..... when you said *"radon is 100% safe."*

@mirlamurillo3473 3 года назад

@@ForensicApps At 13:00 in video 1 you say, "Radon is 100% safe."

@ForensicApps 3 года назад

@@gatsbylight4766 Hello, hello! So, the context is that *toxicologically* radon is inert. (In fact radon is a noble gas, meaning that it's simply does not react with anything as a general rule). Therefore, the *gas* is biologically inert - as such, the gas is 100% incapable of harm. The problem of course is not the gas, per se, but rather the fact that the gas is unstable and it breaks down into "something else." It is that "something else" (the SLRDs) that is harmful not the radon gas. I hope that helps.

@ForensicApps 3 года назад

@@mirlamurillo3473 Hello Mirla, thank you for your comments please see my response to Gatsby Light, below.

@peterprimes497 5 лет назад

Anyone ever suffer from Asthma like symptoms from Radon ?. Shortness of breath ? The levels in my basement bounce between 8-11ish pci/Ls.

@ForensicApps 5 лет назад

Hello! Thank you for your question. No, asthma is not a sign or symptom of radon exposure. Furthermore it would be impossible for radon to trigger an asthmatic attack or, any kind of allergic reaction.

@outoftheklosset 4 года назад

Caoimhín P Connell why would it be impossible? I'm asking because I'm allergic to cold temperatures which to a lot of people, seems impossible (my past anaphylaxis episodes prove otherwise.) Is it because we are already exposed to it?

@kmain0 4 года назад

@@outoftheklosset Did you watch the video? It's because Radon is chemically inert. It's a noble gas. It cannot affect the human body.

@shadgetz5308 4 года назад

@@kmain0 did you watch the video, radon is inert, but the sister elements, radon progeny, are not inert

@milkyswag01 4 года назад

Sounds like you may have a mold problem.

@haruyasumi616 3 года назад

20 seconds in, and i realise, sadly, this has nothing to do with the flying dinosaur thing in kaijyu movies.

@Glasses5x 3 года назад

....LOL! What r u on about? XD

@mistereearly1141 Год назад

THE GERM THEORY vs THE TERRAIN THEORY. Start there. Find your theory. Neither are fact. Which one makes more sense?

@highvoltagefeathers 5 лет назад

This thing is full of holes, no explanations are provided for statements contrary to EPA advice. By the way it's 35,000 picocuries per KILOGRAM of banana, not gram. You shouldn't miss your talking points by three orders of magnitude.

@ForensicApps 5 лет назад

Hello, Highvoltage - We're sorry you somehow missed all the references and all of the explanations that were provided. That somebody completely missed all of the explanations and all of the numerous references provided, leads us to conclude you didn't actually watch the videos, otherwise you would have heard and seen all the explanations and all of the references.

@Glasses5x 3 года назад

@@ForensicApps ...or they're so fully of other ideas they're not willing to let go of, they were literally blinding themselves to it.

@etchalaco9971 7 лет назад

"Before correction for random uncertainties, the increased risk of lung cancer of 8% (3% to 16%) per 100 Bq/m3 in these European studies was consistent with that of 11% (0% to 28%) found in a recent combined analysis of North American studies.21 The European collaboration, however, has greater power and more extreme statistical significance because it involves twice as many cases of lung cancer and higher radon concentrations (10% of measured values were > 200 Bq/m3 versus 5% in the North American studies). Our results are also consistent with the pooled results of two Chinese studies22 and with a meta-analysis of the published results of 17 studies, which, however, found marked heterogeneity between the different publications.23 This heterogeneity disappeared in our analysis, in which data on each separate individual were collated centrally and analysed with uniform methods." Radon in homes and risk of lung cancer: collaborative analysis of individual data from 13 European case-control studies S Darby, professor of medical statistics,1 D Hill, statistician,1 A Auvinen, professor of epidemiology,2 J M Barros-Dios, professor of epidemiology,3 H Baysson, statistician,4 F Bochicchio, senior researcher,5 H Deo, statistician,6 R Falk, principal scientist,7 F Forastiere, professor of epidemiology,8 M Hakama, professor of epidemiology,9 I Heid, statistician,10 L Kreienbrock, professor of statistics,11 M Kreuzer, epidemiologist,12 F Lagarde, statistician,13 I Mäkeläinen, health physicist,14 C Muirhead, statistician,15 W Oberaigner, epidemiologist,16 G Pershagen, professor of environmental medicine,13 A Ruano-Ravina, professor of epidemiology,3 E Ruosteenoja, scientist,14 A Schaffrath Rosario, statistician,10 M Tirmarche, epidemiologist,4 L Tomášek, statistician,17 E Whitley, visiting lecturer in medical statistics,18 H-E Wichmann, professor of epidemiology,10 and R Doll, emeritus professor of medicine1

@ForensicApps 6 лет назад

Hello "et chalaco" - you have merely cut and paste some information from someone else - do you have a comment on their findings? I reviewed the Darby study when it came out and I have shared my thoughts here: www.forensic-applications.com/radon/reviews.html

@dudeyo8428 5 лет назад

Lol

@Glasses5x 3 года назад

[chuckles] It's hilarious that, of the 3 studies typically provided as "proof" of the thing, you provide a clip of the one that literally carries the LEAST weight as far as being considered evidence.

@andecap1325 2 года назад

@4:04 a god pops up

@ThierryC2373 3 года назад

The guy lost me the instant he says "God sticks more and more neutrons... blah blah blah"... don't mix fantasy with sciences if you want people to understand the world. And then , he says that pCi/L is not a unit of concentration and then continues to speak and demonstrate numbers using pCi/L as a concentration unit... bummer!

@ForensicApps 3 года назад

Hello Thierry Coton - Thank you for your comment. Yes, you heard me correctly. The cautionary tale, however, is yours to consider since you are confusing science with scientism - that is, you are confusing materialistic positivistic dogma with actual science and facts. As a scientist, I happen to have science on my side and with the same, I reject the materialist proposition. Also correct that pCi/L is not a concentration. So why do I continue to use it? How else could I possibly communicate the necessary ides to people who will otherwise only encounter radon expressed as "pCi/L" and who will continuously come across the term in virtually all of the literature they will see?

@jamescederquist2507 2 года назад

@@ForensicApps so how do you measure the concentration? I'm getting readings of 14 pCI/L in my bedroom. And 9pCi/L in my living room.

@ForensicApps 2 года назад

@@jamescederquist2507 Hello Mr. Cederquist- Hello Mr. Cederquist- Thank you for your question, which falls into the “CSI Trap.” This trap is where the general public is under the false assumption that one can collect “a sample” send the sample off to a lab, who will analyze the same, and answer a question in the collector’s mind. But that is not how samples, analyses or science works. In particular, the question you are posing (“What is the radon concentration in my home?”) cannot be answered by the lab and it similarly cannot be answered with your air sample (regardless of which method you choose). But that is all just fine, because in reality, you don’t really care what the concentration of radon is. If a lab told you there was 0.019 ppt radon in your home, you would then still have to revert to the ultimate question “Well, is that safe?” And that is NOT something the lab can answer, because unless THEY did a risk assessment for you, they don’t know the answer either. So, in reality, you’re not really seeking an answer to the question “what is the concentration?” you want to know if your exposures in your home are an health hazard. To do that, you first have to establish 1) What is your exposure, 2) what is your dose, 3) what is your dose-rate, and 4) (most importantly), what is the threshold above which you will consider that dose “unsafe?” To help answer those questions, I recommend you read my more detailed discussion here: www.forensic-applications.com/radon/radon.html

@JonathanGrandt 2 года назад

Atomic theory is a theory.

@ForensicApps 2 года назад

Number Theory is a Theory (but you can still count to 100), and the diesel engine is just a theory, but that doesn't stop trucks from rumbling down the road.

@liveuntetheredmusepodcast4832 4 года назад

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has set the action level at 4 pCi/L (picocuries of radon per liter of air). "If you don't have a base level where the average person can go by, than how are you supposed to warn the average homeowner to check the levels every two years? It's still radon levels, maybe not technically, but it's still the levels we have to go by. In my opinion, you're just confusing the public with this information, and that's just going to frustrate people to not check at all! You're doing more harm than good." Do you think the EPA is doing this for profit? Give me a break, many counties give these kits away for free. They are also installing the proper ventilation units if your levels are above the base level for free.

@Glasses5x 3 года назад

Fear makes people stupid. Government agencies are made of people who experience fear just the same as the rest of us. They're also people who experience pride. Some people find it easier to go with the flow instead of taking a stand for accuracy/integrity/honesty. The EPA acknowledges a LOT of what this guy's saying, but does so in a way that's confusing & muddies the waters, which unfortunately contributes to fear of the thing, which makes things worse, not better. :/

@ForensicApps 2 года назад

OK - I'm sorry I confused you. So here's it is in a nut-shell. 1) The "radon" monitoring devices are ENTIRELY unreliable, and the "results" can't be trusted. So, if you get a reading of 0.1 pCi/L you may have an annual radon exposure of 20 pCi/L and if your results are 20 pCi/L you may have an annual radon exposure of 0.1 pCi/L. 2) Either way, you've just wasted your time and money (or somebody else's time and money), since, unless you are a smoker living in a mine), there are no studies that show these kinds of exposures increase the risk of lung cancer (and some of the best data available indicates that those kinds of level may actually decrease your risk of lung cancer). I hope that clears thing up a bit!

@liveuntetheredmusepodcast4832 2 года назад

@@ForensicApps Someone here in Michigan just died of basement radon exposure. There is plenty of data, that long term exposure causes lung cancer and other problems. This should be common sense to most people by now. Proper testing of radon in a basement, has to be over an extended period of time. So saying it gives false readings, really doesn't make any sense. Go test some leaky wet basements, properly..and you will surely find the facts, answer your questions.

@TheDanielShepherd 3 года назад

"So god sticks in more and more neutrons" what?? God???

@bill72pa 3 года назад

He means whoever created atoms. If you know the answer to that, just substitute that for God.

@ForensicApps 3 года назад

Hello The DanielShepard - Yes. God. Don't confuse science with scientism.

@jimwhite537 6 лет назад

I'll admit I'm lost with the scientific formulas and parts per something, just the same I have some thoughts to share on Radon testing and mitigation. From part 1 of 4 videos what I heard is that a home in the US with an average two day radon test score of 4 or higher is "suggested" by the EPA" to be remediated. That the level of 4 or higher is NOT a law, standard or statutary requirement. Absent of that EPA suggestion, what would be an alarming or acceptable limit? I don't know. So this is my position. There are MANY actions and inaction's we with the greatest intellect on Earth take in our daily lives, many we don't always agree with, others we don't fully understand. While a case for questioning the necessity for radon remediation, this lecture is based on a good deal of theory as well and suggests a very questionable reaction to testing. I believe I am correct that Mr. Connell said that a home with a reading of 4 and another with a reading of 2.9, the home with the 2.9 reading may be more harmful. So, here is the meat of my position. I wear a seat belt MOST of the time but I have great confidence in my driving skills, both offensively and defensively. Just the same there is that POSSIBILITY someone may loose control of their vehicle at a rate that I just can't avoid, so I take that precaution. IT GIVES ME PEACE OF MIND! In the states, my experience is that new home construction is not tested for radon. Yet, upon the first resale the buyer often places a contingency on the purchase agreement that the property pass a radon test with the two day exposure rating less than 4. If the results are 4 or higher, the seller will be asked to arrange and pay for remediation. Should the seller refuse, the purchase agreement can be voided, or the buyer can waive that contingency and either ignore the results or have the mitigation done at their own expense. This brings up a couple interesting thoughts for me. First, it is common that a family who buys a home that has never been tested may live in that home for twenty years or more. Upon its sale at that time, based on a high radon test, the seller may be required to have installed and pay for radon mitigation that will at the very least provide PEACE OF MIND for the new buyer while it may cause unrest and uncertainty to those who had lived in the home for all those years without it. At the age of 66, I have owned and sold more than my share of homes, at least five (5) were tested for radon, none were at or above 4. I am currently in a ten year old home in northern Ohio that was just tested this week with a rating of 4.6. We will do a remediation, soon, very soon. In closing let me share some of the comments I've been told by radon testers: A radon tester I contracted in 2010 said that once you test for radon it will never change. Not true, according to the tester I used this past week. He says the EPA suggests a test every two years, he thought every three or four would be adequate. Simple math indicates that within twelve years of testing the remediation could have been paid for; he also suggested that ratings are frequently higher during the winter months (no idea about the relavancy of that); and his "thought" was that if there were a major ground disturbance near your home the readings can be greater. Like a new home being built in closer proximity. My opinion is, there is nothing so precious as the life, safety and health of those I love. That the cost of a radon test generally $170. to $185., will give me two things. An understanding of where my home is in relation to the EPA suggestion of lower than 4 and whether the cost of mediation, unless my reading were say 2 or less, would give me the PEACE OF MIND knowing any fluctuations in the radon levels entering my home would be mitigated as long as we live there. As well, I would know that I will not, upon leaving that home, potentially pay for the PEACE OF MIND of its new occupant, someone I don't even know.

@ForensicApps 6 лет назад

Jim White - Thank you for your comments. As you view the remainder of the videos, you may find that your peace of mind come not from testing, but from not testing, and indeed, just not worrying about the radon concentration at all!

@vivianoosthuizen8990 3 года назад

I am here because of Japan releasing radioactive water into the ocean from their nuclear disaster plant

@ForensicApps 3 года назад

Welcome!

@ionhunter 7 лет назад

s=k log w

@MNicehole 6 лет назад

Comes out of the ground right..... you tell me how to get away from it.... them poor farmers working the ground every day and don't forget them miners,, R there any of them left or did they all die for the radon......sounds like a money Scam.. Just Saying ???

@genesmay6589 6 лет назад

MNicehole it's my understanding it builds up inside the home. Not just off gassing from the ground. You can't see it or smell it but like gas it builds up to concentrate and will put you to sleep permanently or kill you slowly eventually... Probably die from eating McDonald's first though... Maybe...

@Glasses5x 3 года назад

@@genesmay6589 "put you to sleep permanently".... I think you're thinking of Carbon Monoxide. Radon's a Noble gas. While noble gases do NOTHING, Radon decays into radioactive "daughters" which can cause problems IF there's enough of the decaying actually happening IN YOUR LUNGS. There is INsufficient data to support the common misconception that enough of this "build up" occurs in the average home to actually contribute to the cause of something like cancer, for which it's apparently quite difficult to properly determine causation. Remember this key: Toxicity is in the DOSE. You need water to live, BUT if you drink too much of it, it will literally be the cause of your body's shutdown = DEATH. That said, 'residential' "Radon" detection systems do not tell you the dose, they do not tell you a measurement of Radon, they don't even tell you how much of any of the Radon "daughters" is present. They typically record/display a measurement of disintegrations happening within a volume of air(pCi/L) which is absolutely worthless in trying to measure accurate dosage received by a person's body.

@genesmay6589 3 года назад

@@Glasses5x I meant asleep permanently as in kill you..sorry for the confusion..and thanks for the lengthy explanation...

@Glasses5x 3 года назад

@@genesmay6589 "as in kill you" I'm not sure why you think there's any confusion because that's exactly what Carbon Monoxide does: kill you. ...just MUCH faster than any effects of Radon or the typical amount of its decaying found in the average home will. You're welcome all the same! :)

@nbgaleriarusticourbana6226 3 года назад

Nora from Boston. HAD to stop watching!! his buggers are sooo annoying, triggers me to vomit. Doesn't he realize how disgusting that is? 🤮

@ForensicApps 2 года назад

Sorry... I had a cold. What can you do? Scientists are humans too, you know!

@jasenwhitney3146 4 года назад

This guy isint using common sence either he is trying to prove radon safe common sence tells you it isint

@Glasses5x 3 года назад

LOL! You brought up "Common Sense" regarding a HIGHLY scientific controversy. I literally laughed out loud. Do a little research on the idiocy of "Common Sense" & actually read the studies & learn a little bit. When any intelligent person looks into the meat of this controversy, reads the studies, listens to what the guy's saying, researches terminology they don't yet understand to the point that they DO then understand it, and then reads your comment, you then come across as one of the uninformed non-critically-thinking bigots "roaming the internet" & none of them can take you seriously. :/

@browntigerus 3 года назад

Sorry, can not stand meta-physics nonsense. Don't quit your day job. Radon is fairly soluble in water unlike what you suggest; you appear to imply at the beginning of the video that lower atomic weight makes it for stable atom: lower weight and entropy?, rather than to [physics 101] stable nuclei - strong force; you suggest that alpha particles can not travel far - of course they can in the air; Beta radiation does not react with body - in reality (B+ and B-), small diameter Rn molecule allows it to penetrate just about most common materials and in addition its heavy weight allows it to displace the oxygen in the room; there are two isotopes of Rn: Rn220 and Rn 222 caused by decaying Thorium and other U238 that you suggest instead Ra decay. You mix-up or misrepresent the meaning of chemically-inert gas, instead claiming it is inert... Rn is not completely inert.. I took modern physics in college 30 years ago, errors are so apparent.

@ForensicApps 3 года назад

Hello Mr. Thompson - Your comments indicate that you are a bit confused, and poorly versed in science, radiation, chemistry and even philosophy. So to begin with, there is no metaphysics in our lecture. Metaphysics is a philosophical endeavor dealing with abstracts and concepts such as ontological realities, being, knowing, substance, causes and so forth. Our talk is about radon. Next, at 0.01 mol kg−1 bar−1 at 293 K, the solubility of radon in water is low. Yes, for training purposes I make the suggestion that elements of lower atomic weights tend to be more stable. I'm not sure why you find that objectionable since in the context of the discussion it is correct. Perhaps you missed the context of the discussion? Yes, I suggest that alpha particles cannot travel far for the simple reason that is a fact. Alpha particles cannot travel far, not even in the air where they can only travel a few centimeters. Also, you are very confused about beta radiation which most definitely can interact with living tissue causing damage, I'm not sure where you got your crazy idea that beta radiation doesn't react with the body, and your rambling comments that follow regarding the diameter of a radon atom are quite intelligible, so I'm not sure how to react to those comments. And finally, yes, I did say that radon is inert because it is inert; it is one of the noble gases (also known as the "inert gases.") I'm glad to hear that you took a "modern physics" course 30 years ago. Based on your comments in this thread, it's apparent that you didn't listen to the instructor and you were unlikely to have received a very good grade. But thanks for visiting!

@Glasses5x 3 года назад

@@ForensicApps Re: "your rambling comments that follow regarding the diameter of a radon atom are quite intelligible, so..." Did you mean UNintelligible? I interpret intelligible as basically 'understandable' & unintelligible as the opposite.

@ForensicApps 3 года назад

@@Glasses5x Yes, I did mean "unintelligible." Thank you.

@lucienpellerin Год назад

Next time you want to make a video,clear your nose before.(less discusting)

@ForensicApps 11 месяцев назад

You are correct!! If I had a choice I would have cancelled until the cold passed! Unfortunately, I was scheduled, and I had to go on. Such is real life!