From Name
Randy Weestrand

Dr.Steck
This chart makes your message vividly clear.  Could this be said to represent radon fluctuations in a typical Minnesota home?
Randy Weestrand
Radon Removal Inc.
952-476-6226
rweestrand@aol.com
www.fixradon.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Steck, Daniel
To: RADONPROFESSIONALS
Sent: Sat, Jun 18, 2011 1:44 pm
Subject: Re: [RNPROF] Short versus long-term measurements for mitigation decisions
#AOLMsgPart_2_5bc6add8-b4b6-461b-8ab1-20fe23d1dd63 td{color: black;} @font-face {font-family:Calibri; panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;} @font-face {font-family:Tahoma; panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;} @font-face {font-family:Consolas; panose-1:2 11 6 9 2 2 4 3 2 4;} #AOLMsgPart_2_5bc6add8-b4b6-461b-8ab1-20fe23d1dd63 p.MsoNormal,#AOLMsgPart_2_5bc6add8-b4b6-461b-8ab1-20fe23d1dd63 li.MsoNormal,#AOLMsgPart_2_5bc6add8-b4b6-461b-8ab1-20fe23d1dd63 div.MsoNormal {margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; color:black;} #AOLMsgPart_2_5bc6add8-b4b6-461b-8ab1-20fe23d1dd63 a:link,#AOLMsgPart_2_5bc6add8-b4b6-461b-8ab1-20fe23d1dd63 span.MsoHyperlink {mso-style-priority:99; color:blue; text-decoration:underline;} #AOLMsgPart_2_5bc6add8-b4b6-461b-8ab1-20fe23d1dd63 a:visited,#AOLMsgPart_2_5bc6add8-b4b6-461b-8ab1-20fe23d1dd63 span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed {mso-style-priority:99; color:purple; text-decoration:underline;} #AOLMsgPart_2_5bc6add8-b4b6-461b-8ab1-20fe23d1dd63 p {mso-style-priority:99; mso-margin-top-alt:auto; margin-right:0in; mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; margin-left:0in; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; color:black;} #AOLMsgPart_2_5bc6add8-b4b6-461b-8ab1-20fe23d1dd63 pre {mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted Char"; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Courier New"; color:black;} #AOLMsgPart_2_5bc6add8-b4b6-461b-8ab1-20fe23d1dd63 span.HTMLPreformattedChar {mso-style-name:"HTML Preformatted Char"; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted"; font-family:Consolas; color:black;} #AOLMsgPart_2_5bc6add8-b4b6-461b-8ab1-20fe23d1dd63 span.EmailStyle20 {mso-style-type:personal; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; color:#1F497D;} #AOLMsgPart_2_5bc6add8-b4b6-461b-8ab1-20fe23d1dd63 span.EmailStyle21 {mso-style-type:personal-reply; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; color:#1F497D;} #AOLMsgPart_2_5bc6add8-b4b6-461b-8ab1-20fe23d1dd63 .MsoChpDefault {mso-style-type:export-only; font-size:10.0pt;} @page WordSection1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;} #AOLMsgPart_2_5bc6add8-b4b6-461b-8ab1-20fe23d1dd63 div.WordSection1 {page:WordSection1;}
Attached is a graph of  2 years of hourly CRM (Pylon AB5) taken under closed house conditions. As you can see the annual averages are both above 4 pCi/L while
roughly 40% of  the 2 day and 7 day averages over this period are below 4 pCi/L .
 
From: bob@mr-radon.ca [mailto:bob@mr-radon.ca]
Sent: Friday, June 17, 2011 5:56 PM
To: Steck, Daniel; RADONPROFESSIONALS@LIST.UIOWA.EDU
Subject: Re: [RNPROF] Short versus long-term measurements for mitigation decisions
 
Has anyone done a study of short term continuous monitor testing vs long term testing?
Bob Wood
Mr Radon
Sent from my BlackBerry device on the Rogers Wireless Network
From: "Steck, Daniel"
Sender: International Web Resource for Radon Professionals
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2011 20:04:51 +0000
To:
ReplyTo: "Steck, Daniel"
Subject: Re: [RNPROF] Short versus long-term measurements for mitigation decisions
 
None of my short-term data from the Upper Midwest  are based on open-faced charcoal devices. The participants were directed to follow the EPA screening protocol
which would preclude open windows. They were also given an 800 number to call  if they had questions about deploying detectors or following the protocol. They did both 2 day and 4 day screening tests in each season.
 
According to 1992 and 1994 articles by White, the devices used in the EPA surveys were split between open and diffusion barrier charcoal adsorption detectors.
 
From: Bernard L. Cohen [mailto:blc@pitt.edu]
Sent: Friday, June 17, 2011 11:30 AM
To: Steck, Daniel
Cc: RADONPROFESSIONALS@LIST.UIOWA.EDU
Subject: Re: [RNPROF] Short versus long-term measurements for mitigation decisions
 
    --All of this discussion ignores the difference between a short term charcoal adsorption test with a diffusion barrier and a short term charcoal adsorption test without a diffusion barrier. The former gives a much longer time averaging
(3-5 day vs 1-2 day average) at very little extra cost. Another issue is whether windows were kept closed for the short term measurement. Our recommendation was to add 30% to a Summer measurement to estimate the annual average. With attention to these matters,
our studies have shown that a charcoal adsorption measurement with a diffusion barrier and with closed windows gives much better results than those described here. Why not make those simple steps standard?
On 6/17/2011 11:05 AM, Steck, Daniel wrote:
My thanks to those who continue to think that this is an important  issue worthy of discussion. I have been reluctant to respond to the numerous recent posts since I feel that this discussion list is an inadequate forum for a debate of the complex issue
of the performance of the current EPA screening protocol. However, it is an important issue that deserves a thorough, fact-based discussion before a large audience. I am trying to organize such a discussion.
 
In the meantime I do want to respond to some of the statements using as a basis my research and the current scientific literature on the performance of short-term screening tests in (a) making mitigation derisions and (b) the related issue of predicting
the annual average radon concentration in living spaces. (The latter is usually taken as an adequate standard for judging long-term radon exposure even though year-to-year variations can be substantial.) I don’t claim to have all the answers but I have spent
almost 30 years trying to establish some scientific information about the situation in the Upper Midwest to compare with other research and experience.
 
Rest assured that I want the fragile radon industry to survive and expand but I also want their customers and clients to be well served.  Shot-tem measurements can be useful and I often recommend them for certain applications or to supplement long-tem measurements
(two seasonal). Short-term measurements can provide temporary relief from radon anxiety, catch a few of those extreme cases that Phil J described and also may be fine for post-mitigation tests. (based on ~100 cases).
 
However, SHORT-TERM SCREENING TESTS correlate poorly with ANNUAL AVERAGE RADON CONCENTRATION IN LIVING SPACES , not just in the Upper Midwest, but in national surveys conducted for the EPA (look at the 1994 publications from White et al.),  ANNUAL AVERAGE
RADON CONCENTRATION IN LIVING SPACES  predictions based on  SHORT-TERM SCREENING TESTS are no better than about
a multiplicative factor of 2 to 3. 
 
Is this good enough for a mitigation decision? If the house has a ANNUAL AVERAGE RADON CONCENTRATION IN LIVING SPACES below  1 pCi/l (as many US houses do) then a factor of two uncertainty will not lead to many poor mitigation decisions.  But, in a radon
prone region many people who should mitigate don’t because their SHORT-TERM SCREENING TESTS came back under 4 pCi/L when their ANNUAL AVERAGE RADON CONCENTRATION IN LIVING SPACES was above 4 pCi/L. In my 2005 study, reported at the  AARST conference, ONLY
 SHORT-TERM SCREENING TESTS BELOW about 1 pCi/L reliably predicted (95%)  ANNUAL AVERAGE RADON CONCENTRATION IN LIVING SPACES  below 4 pCi/L.  It took SHORT-TERM SCREENING TEST result of around 6 pCi/L to reliably predict  ANNUAL AVERAGE RADON CONCENTRATION
IN LIVING SPACES  above 4 pCi/L.  If you look at the national data (table 2 White 1994) you see a similar pattern of increasing failure rates of SHORT-TERM SCREENING TESTS as the house measurements approach 4 pCi/L. So  SHORT-TERM SCREENING TESTS may only
fail a few percent of the time when applied to a national sample but fails at a an unacceptable rate in radon regions and for homes whose ANNUAL AVERAGE RADON CONCENTRATION IN LIVING SPACES  is near the action level. Depending on your values, you may be more
tolerant of a false positive failure (mitigating a house whose ANNUAL AVERAGE RADON CONCENTRATION IN LIVING SPACES  is less than 4 pCi/L) than a false negative failure (not mitigating a house with ANNUAL AVERAGE RADON CONCENTRATION IN LIVING SPACES   greater
than 4 pCi/L). We need to find a way to incorporate uncertainty to reduce the decision-making failure rate for homes “near” the action level.
I think that we, as a professional community, can improve mitigation decision making without great economic damage to measurement companies or unnecessary disruption of consumer confidence. However,   progress will require effort, resources, and respectful
cooperation of researchers, industry, and (hopefully) government agencies. I hope you think it is a worthwhile task.
 
 
Sincerely
Dan
 
 
 
Daniel J. Steck, PhD.
Professor, Physics Department, St. John's University
Director: Schaefer Environmental Radiation Laboratory
 
109 PENGL Science Center
Collegeville, MN USA 56321
320-363-3186 or 800-820-3209    FAX 320-363-3202
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SECURITY/CONFIDENTIALITY WARNING:  This message and any attachments are intended solely for the individual or entity to which they are addressed. This communication may contain information that is privileged, confidential, or exempt from disclosure under applicable
law (e.g., personal health information, research data, financial information). Because this e-mail has been sent without encryption, individuals other than the intended recipient may be able to view the information, forward it to others or tamper with the
information without the knowledge or consent of the sender. If you are not the intended recipient, or the employee or person responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution or copying of the communication is
strictly prohibited. If you received the communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by replying to this message and deleting the message and any accompanying files from your system. If, due to the security risks, you do not wish to receive
further communications via e-mail, please reply to this message and inform the sender that you do not wish to receive further e-mail from the sender.
==============================================================================
 
********** RN PROF (Subscription changes - archives) -
http://list.uiowa.edu/scripts/wa.exe?SUBED1=RADONPROFESSIONALS&A=1 ***********
--
Bernard L. Cohen
Physics Dept., University of Pittsburgh
Pittsburgh, PA 15260
Tel: (412)624-9245  Fax: (412)624-9163
e-mail: blc@pitt.edu  web site: http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc
********** RN PROF (Subscription changes - archives) -
http://list.uiowa.edu/scripts/wa.exe?SUBED1=RADONPROFESSIONALS&A=1 ***********
********** RN PROF (Subscription changes - archives) - http://list.uiowa.edu/scripts/wa.exe?SUBED1=RADONPROFESSIONALS&A=1 ***********
********** RN PROF (Subscription changes - archives) - http://list.uiowa.edu/scripts/wa.exe?SUBED1=RADONPROFESSIONALS&A=1 ***********