I did not get any response to my previous post so I took the old EPA pull-down data state by state and built it into an Excel spreadsheet. It turns out there are 154 cities and counties and 30 states which have added RRNC Appendix F regulations to their building codes, at least as of 2017. It would be great if the EPA kept an up-to-date list of cities that have adopted Appendix F and AF.

If anyone would like a copy of the spreadsheet, it is available on my website: http://radonattahoe.com/present.htm

This post is 9 months old, but does anyone know of a list of all municipalities which have adopted Appendix F or AF? There is an old EPA Radon web site that is still available that has a pull down list by state (https://19january2017snapshot.epa.gov/radon/building-codes-radon-resistant-new-construction-rrnc_.html), but I am looking for all cities in a single list. We are attempting to get Appendix F of the IRC adopted by the City of South Lake Tahoe, CA. Based on the above info I will look into Appendix AF of the 2021 IRC as well.

Kevin,
It's always good to hear your analysis. I'm struggling to get my city (South Lake Tahoe), county (El Dorado), and state (California) to give a rip about radon, much less adopting Appendix F of the IRC as part of their building code. We have an affordable housing project going up as we speak with "vapor barriers and vented crawl spaces" as their preferred radon preventative measures. As I go about my seemingly lonely attempt the to make radon progress here in the West, I wonder if you knew of a list of cities, counties, and states which have adapted Appendix F as part of their building code that I could point to. Also, if anyone in AARST or ALA wants to work with me to get California on board, I would love to talk to them.

Jeff Miner
Radon At Tahoe
radonattahoe.com
jeffminer3atgmaildotcom

Larainne,
Of course you are right, we have made progress. But as I look around here in California I see unmet resistance from the real estate industry, the construction industry, the legislature, and even the California Radon Program that fuels my pessimism. Are there better approaches to getting RRNC into all new construction? Getting required radon tests with every real estate transaction? Getting the California Department of Public Health to fund a full person to run the radon program in the most populous state? Getting the California legislature to require that the Natural Hazard Report to use current and local radon maps? Are there better, more effective ways to forward our agenda? Sorry for the venting.

Bill Brodhead, the map takes a little getting used to. The symbols in the upper right give a lot of info about the map and how to use it.

ReveAnn Ellrott, I am so glad to learn that the map is being used in California and that the Natural Hazard Disclosure report in Southern California is using it. I wonder if ALL providers of NHD reports are using it. The fact that the map is front and center when you go to the California Radon Program web page is good sign that more people will become aware of it.

Larainne Koehler, good point that we should not only rely on radon maps but we should test all houses. However, like it or not, many people and institutions do rely on quick visual content, maps included, rather than reading the fine print to make a determination. Look at the widespread use of the of the original EPA state and county radon maps, accurate or not. As the science of geology and GIS database mapping continues to evolve, there is no reason I can see not to provide the best possible radon maps to the public. Of course "test every home" can be the gold standard recommendation, but these GIS maps will become more common and it gives people a chance to see the latest science on radon risk from a geologist's standpoint. I'm all for them.

Stan Plowden, I agree that there are high radon homes in low risk areas. Testing every home is still our radon awareness goal. However we have not been very good at delivering on that goal. I read that on the 50th anniversary of the EPA they estimated that 2 million families have tested and fixed their homes in the last 30 years of radon SIRG grants. Compare that to 128 million households in the U.S. and you get less than 2% of homes mitigated in 30 years. I'm unimpressed with the "progress" of testing every home.

Chris Bonniwell, that CDC National Environmental Public Health Tracking Network map was great! You can ask about testing multiple ways. One sad thing I learned, for California anyway, is that while the large testing companies turn in testing data to the CDC on a regular basis, my California Radon Program has not turned over any testing data since 2016. While I am happy with the progress on the radon maps, I must say I am frustrated that the California Radon Program only employs one very part-time employee who is not given the resources to ask the smaller radon measurement companies to send her their test results, much less to do any radon awareness outreach. Our Radon Test Data Base by zip Code (https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CEH/DRSEM/CDPH%20Document%20Library/EMB/Radon/Radon%20Test%20Results.pdf) is only updated to 2016 and more than that it is not in a format that can be easily charted or graphed. I had to translate it over to Excel to do any decent analysis and charts by zip codes.

My unofficial tally so far:

States Using the Newborn Radon Program
as of 8.22.2019
Participating Test Kits
State Hospitals per year
Pennsylvania 100 500
New York 56
Utah 16
Alabama 7

Thanks Mike. Glad to hear you got the evidence along with your new grand kids!
Jeff

Hi Mitchell,

A few years ago I put together a few pages of suggestions for realtors about radon. Here is the link to my web page which never got much traffic with the realtors in my region of the Sierra Nevada in California. I did make a few presentations to real estate brokers and their staff who showed some interest. Truth be known, most real estate sales people are looking for sales first, and not too interested in spending time dealing with the problems, or at least that's what I found here. Maybe you can use some of the text or links for your presentation. Feel free to take what you can use.

http://www.jeffminerconsulting.com/radon/real-estate.htm

Jeff Miner
Radon At Tahoe
RadonAtTahoe.com

Thank you all for weighing in. I think a simplified way of saying it might be Gail Orcutt's comment that 1/3 of those who die from radon-induced lung cancer were living with a level between 2-4 pCi/L. And data from Bill Field's reports that stated Most Radon-Induced Lung Cancers Occur Below the U.S. EPA’s Radon Action Level. I think I would be within the bounds of good science using these statements.

I am glad to see a civil discussion of the Safety Siren Pro 3. I have been selling this unit for 5 years. When I do get returns from customers who mark it as "defective" it either means they are truly defective or an unscrupulous customer just wants to take advantage of the liberal 30 day return policy to use the unit and then return it within 30 days. When I test these "defective" units against others returned, and with new units, I have found they are quite consistent in their readings. That does not mean they are "accurate" compared to some perfect standard, but consistent with each other. When I do get an outlier, or one with an error message, I send it back to the factory for replacement and they are very good about that. That probably happens to only about 5 out of 100 returned "defective" units tested.

Based on many tests I believe the unit is reliable enough to serve home owners as a first alert to determine if there is a radon problem that needs to be fixed. Protocol says that if you get a high reading test again with another device or call in a professional to confirm it.

Thanks, Kevin, for the charts and discussion. I will use that info in my upcoming talk to Soroptimists.

Jeff Miner
Radon At Tahoe

Great comments and thank you for the sources. So it seems there is no clear consensus on comparing radon risk to smoking risk. That's a shame. By now people understand that smoking is a high risk activity. It would be useful to be able to link radon risk, which most people are not familiar with, to smoking risk, which most people are familiar with.

So, to summarize:
1. The 2014 Nevada Radon newsletter report from Marcel Brascoupe of "living in a home with an average radon level of 4 pCi/l poses as much risk of developing lung cancer as smoking half a pack of cigarettes a day!"

2. Gail Orcutt's chart from AARST that "4 pCi/L equals 8 cigarettes a day"

So my question still is: What figures can I use when making a presentation to a group interested in the risks of radon to help them understand the radon risk of lung cancer as compared to smoking?

Thanks,
Jeff Miner
Radon At Tahoe

After years of getting rebuffed by the administration of my local hospital when I would bring up the Physicians and Radon program started in Iowa or the Newborn Radon program so popular in Pennsylvania, I was invited to be on the Patient and Family Advisory Council. I told them my agenda to get radon discussed and acted on by the medical community and they were OK with that. So far I have attended a few bi-monthly meetings and they have tolerated a brief display of a local radon map and testing results. They tell me that radon has been brought up at one of the physician meetings but I doubt they would ever let me, a mere lay person, give a teaching session to doctors. So, for now I am grateful to be present at the table and will be working on my two radon projects as I am able.
Jeff Miner
Radon At Tahoe