This is a little alarming, especially for those of us who are contractors and not epidemiologists and have to rely upon the experts to educate us. Will those from academia or science please educate us as to the facts so we can be truthful and accurate in our communications to the public? Arguably, if the Wired article is true we need to make different recommendations than those by EPA and WHO.

Many of the statements in the Wired article are false. Please trust the EPA and WHO. The article substantially misrepresents the Health Physics Society position on radon and ignores the case-control studies published over the past 20 years. I have been talking with other colleagues in regard to how to best respond. Once we develop a response, I will be sure to post.

This came across my news feed yesterday. I have a couple presentations booked for realtors and new home buyers and would love to be able to provide a reply should any questions related to the article come up. I look forward to the response.

I looked at the referenced "Health Physics Society" and couldn't find the statement that radon was not a risk until it reached "27 billion picocuries". Late in the article they seem to hint that 8 pCi/l should be the number. Any idea where 27 billion comes from?

Please provide a comment on the very misleading article. The 27 billion picocuries figure is based on the very faulty assumption that the Health Physics Society supports 10 rem exposure per year to radon for 70 years. There is no basis in the HPS position statment to support this number.
______________________
There were numerous substantive errors in this article regarding the risk posed by radon.

For example, the erroneous statement, "But scientists can only prove that radon is carcinogenic at high doses. Like, rates typically found in mine shafts, not suburban homes.", neglects over 20 years of residential radon research studies which have repeatedly documented that even protracted radon exposure below the U.S. EPA's Radon Action Level substantially increases lung cancer risk (even for individuals who have never smoked) (see - http://apps.who.int/iris/bi....

Another false and misleading statement in the Wired article - “…Health Physics Society (a large scientific organization for radiation safety specialists) has officially stated that radon produces no statistically measurable health effects until levels reach about 27 billion picocuries.”

I would urge readers of “Wired” to read the Health Physics Society’s actual position on radon – https://hps.org/documents/r... that states “The U.S. EPA has established guidelines for exposure to radon in homes. At levels of 4 pCi/L or more, the U.S. EPA encourages members of the public to take steps to reduce the radon concentrations and to consider action at levels above 2 pCi/L. The Health Physics Society concurs with the U.S. EPA’s guideline of 4 pCi/L. However, because 4 pCi/L is not a definite line between safe” and unsafe, the Health Physics Society agrees with the EPA’s recommendation to consider action at levels below 4 pCi/L. Recent residential epidemiological studies have demonstrated that there is a statistically significant increased risk of lung cancer at concentrations below the U.S. EPA’s action level of 4 pCi/L.

If treated as its own disease category, lung cancer mortality among people who have never smoked is one of the top ten causes of cancer mortality in the United States. Radon is the leading cause of lung cancer among individuals who have never smoked.

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.”

Gordon, I, for one, am not surprised that AARST was not contacted to provide a counter-argument, but I am disappointed.
I wonder how long it will be until a disgruntled Homeseller quotes the article to me.

It looks like the author of the Wired article made an attempt to correct some of the mileading statements in the article.

I wanted to share with you EPA's response to the editor of Wired. Feel free to use this language (attached).