Rather confusing verbiage; but we do not know if that is the fault of the reporter or the interviewee.

horrible information, that's what confuses the public

It is the rare article on radon that has no errors. For example, all the subatomic and macro physics are unfamiliar enough to most people that errors even by people you'd hope would know better are common. And many people interviewed are one-day-training-experts and not professional speakers so a reality is that thoughts can come out poorly, or that they're simply mistaken, not to mention that some essential phrase might have gotten edited out by someone who's also not an expert on radon.

So over the years, I've become philosophical about things, and I'm now accustomed to looking at whether an article is a net positive, not whether it is free of mistakes. In my opinion, there are enough statements in this presentation that are useful and accurate--e.g., "You can’t see it and can’t smell it but radon gas can seep into your home and greatly increase your risk for lung cancer. It's a real threat for those of us here in the Tennessee Valley and the only way to know you have it, is to test your home."--that I'm willing to grant that the piece is a net positive, despite the cringe moments and even the occasional egregious mistake. My hope is that with good information available otherwise and with proper training, certification and oversight of radon professionals, the public will eventually get the straight story even if they were initially misled on some points by a three-minute news item.

Well put, Kevin.

Brian R Gaulke, CHPemeritus