| John Beardmore 2005-07-18, 11:25 pm |
| In message <vk0tq2-5q6.ln1@othello.pointerstop.ca>, Derek Broughton
<news@pointerstop.ca> writes
quote:
>John Beardmore wrote:
>
>I wouldn't know "epedemiological", but it's hardly crank science. It's
>widely accepted that it's a problem. Just google for 'radon "building
>code"'
It is. However when I did a post graduate health and safety course
recently, they did include one article that was based on epidemiological
evidence that casts some doubt on the assumed risks of radon exposure.
See block 1, page 17 of the Open university T835 Integrated Safety,
Health and Environmental Management MSc module, article entitled “How
dangerous is radon in buildings ? - Some reflections from Europe”.
This points out that
“...there is an increasing number of scientists who
seriously question the validity of the ICRP assumptions,
and all the more or less official government actions
based on them - including the socio-economic impact
of remedial measures which would be required in high
radon areas.”
and goes on to cite a populations exposed to high radon levels on
which it comments,
“If ICRP would be correct, these workers would exceed
would exceed the annual dose limit for radiation workers
(20mSv) in a few hours. However, no detrimental health
effects have so far, been established in epidemiological
studies in many countries...”.
In short, the assumed effects on which many precautionary measures are
based do not seem to occur in the field, even with very significant
underground exposure, so while I don't doubt that this is a "widely
accepted" problem, I'm far less certain that
a) it's a real problem,
or that
b) we really know what's going on.
Interesting issue though ! Any other empirically based info on this ?
Cheers, J/.
--
John Beardmore
|