Wow, I've seen some pretty bad ones, but this is worse. The pipe and sealing in the house are probably a joy, too.

Pipe has gone up 80% for me (actually 120%, then back down). Fittings have just about doubled. Thankful I can adjust pricing week to week with each new home instead of being locked into an annual contract on a large project. I've been surprised that raising my price has not cost me a single job yet.

Thanks, Chrystine, for pointing out the article. Re-read it, and realized the author was hot to write about genetic research into cancer. That was the point and scope of his/her article. His 'hook', though, the example to interest you in reading the rest of the article, was the author's undoing. A woman who never smoked getting lung cancer might be an example of why genetic research into mutations is important, but we all know of a better explanation. The article wasn't on all the risk factors for cancer, though, but an update on new genetic research. Jamie Ducharme chose this example and title poorly. Still the author is now "on the hook", you might say. Great idea to ask him/her to atone by writing an article on Radon! Don't look for it this January, though. The topics Time will publish are laid out typically a year ahead, and submitting and review take months. The author could write the best article ever and it would likely be 2021 before it was published. Still, great idea, hats off to Terry.

I'm with you that they should mention certified or at least trained professionals (NY does not require certification). I do favor homeowner fixes if the level is just over 4.0pCi/L and they seem handy, though. More than once the cure for elevated radon has been a couple tubes of caulk and a sump cover before retesting. I'm happy to do this, but they don't need to pay me if they can do it themselves. If the level is above 4.8 or 5, though, these simple solutions alone have not worked in my experience and a mitigation system is needed.

Bill, very interesting paper, thank you for sharing it!
Was there any speculation on what caused the high CO2 in the Conshohoken example, or why the neighboring house cleared up without mitigation?
Jim

Thanks, Kevin, good insight.

LeAnna, thank you for the healthy laugh; this is an instant classic.
Jim

Agreed; I don't think testing your garden soil for radon is a very helpful tip. On the other hand, it is primarily an article about which foods to eat. In that context, they don't mention smoking or other causes of lung cancer.

Staining to match wood has been successful.
Spray painting with 'Krylon' brand paint is moderately successful. It had a better bond than other brands I tried, but was subject to damage from contact with any hard surface, including pipe clamps, tools, kids toys, etc. Can scratch it off with a fingernail. Above routine contact height it has lasted 2+ years so far.

Thank you, Mr. Field. That is a great help.

It is consistent that EPA would use a value per human life as a method to evaluate risk and mitigation. Other federal agencies and regulations follow the same method and use a similar value; notably US OSHA in evaluating requirements for limiting risks to asbestos and a host of other hazards. We agree each life is invaluable, but understand that there must be some limit to regulations and recommendations for hazard reduction. It may sound callous at first glance, but using a value-based criterion for evaluating mitigation limits avoids the potential for suggesting unaffordable methods to achieve minimal health gains.

The article's suggestion that low levels of radiation may be beneficial is spurious in this limited context. We are all exposed to background levels of various types of radiation from a host of sources, including solar radiation, microwaves and ambient levels of radon of 0.1 to 0.4 pCi/L outside our homes. In this radon exposure context, the question should be whether increasing radon exposure, in addition to all other radiation exposures, has any positive health benefit. The answer must be: “We don’t know. We have no data. Probably not.”