Thank you to Bruce Decker, Bill Brodhead and unnamed others for participating on and sharing your experiences about Standards committees. Discussions are detailed and occasionally emotionally charged. It is time-consuming, difficult and very important work.

This thread on this Forum is an example of what Standards committee members can experience in any meeting. How do we notify the occupants of radon system operation? Does it need an alarm? What is an alarm? Is is audible? If not audible, do we call it an indicator? A warning? Can we imagine how such a device would be used or abused when installed? How might it affect overall radon system efficacy? What type of device is sufficient for the safety of the occupants? How many of these questions should be answered in the marketplace and not in the Standard?

So again, THANK YOU to those who participate on Standards committees.

I believe Standards must address public safety and health. We cannot have committees with a majority of mitigation contractors, or a majority representation of any one stakeholder group. All stakeholder interests must be represented per consensus standards process rules. There is important history and rationale for this methodology.

There are many examples of safety products now in use to which people originally objected. Anyone know the history of the seat belt? Today it is hard to imagine objection to seat belts, but there was loud and organized opposition to this now ubiquitous safety device.

Of those who object to the radon system alarm requirement, how many have statements on their websites that quote the US EPA's estimate of 21,000 deaths a year from radon-induced lung cancer? Radon is real and it can kill people. I know I could not tell any lung cancer victim or his/her loved ones that an alarm on a home improvement designed to help prevent a horrific illness is a bad idea. .

I have evacuated a hotel room because someone overcooked his egg sandwich in the breakfast area microwave. I have been awakened in the dead of night at home to deal with the dying battery in a chirping smoke or CO alarm. For me, the annoyance was outweighed by my preference for personal safety.

I am in favor of an alarm on radon systems. The manifestation of that concept in a product is a separate (and also important) discussion. There are any number of companies around the globe who will listen and address challenges such as this one.

Thank you, Rick, for sharing the story of how E-PERMs came to be. Lorin R. Stieff was one of the kindest and most intellectually curious people I have ever met. He shared his knowledge openly and encouraged scientific inquiry, especially regarding radon and electret ion chamber technology, as only a true scientist can. I was lucky to spend time Lorin, Dr. Kotrappa and Jack Dempsey in the early days of Rad Elec's growth. Their collaborative work on different applications of electret technology was vibrant and exciting. Our industry will be forever bettered by Lorin's dedication. I would like to extend my deepest sympathies to his family and friends.

My first job in the radon industry was working for Rad Elec and Dr. Kotrappa. He was a generous, patient and dedicated scientist who never hesitated to share his experience and knowledge. His energy was constant and his enthusiasm for E-PERMs, and radon research was truly unfettered. I am very proud that our Association recognized Dr. Kotrappa's achievements with the Akerblom Scott Award. It was a privilege to know Dr. Kotrappa. I extend my sympathies to his family and friends.