From Name
Andreas George

Dr. Price states that he has no objection whatever to using short-term
measurements where it is appropriate to do so. I believe it is very appropriate
to do so in the US where the scope of the radon measurement program was to
screen the housing stock for hot spots and appropriate more funding to address
the problem areas. EPA determined that there was good agreement between 
short-term and long-term radon measurements ( >85%). EPA acted wisely,
to use the minimum 2-day measurement and the observance of  two
diurnal cycles.Most of the radon measurements today in the US,  are for 2-7
days duration.
As a result of this strategy more than 18 million measurements were
conducted since 1988 with about 1 million with radon levels >4
pCi/L. According to EPA and according to the number of mitigation fans
sold, more than 800,000 homes have been mitigated successfully. Who can argue
with this phenomenal number. Imagine how many lives were saved?  If
something works for the US Radon Program lets us keep using it. 
Our efforts should be directed towards motivating the public to do radon
testing if not done so and urge those that live in homes that were found to have
radon levels above the action level to mitigate them.
 In unusual situations such as in Karst geological areas (10-15%),
short-term measurements during the summer and winter seasons or long-term
measurements may be used to determine the annual average. 
 
 Andy George
 
 
In a message dated 6/21/2011 2:08:09 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
pnprice@LBL.GOV writes:
Dr.
Cohen, I'm not saying there is anything wrong with making short-term
measurements.  There is nothing unscientific about using short-term
measurements.  But there is ALSO nothing unscientific about using
long-term measurements.  Which one is appropriate depends on which
scientific questions one is attempting to answer.  There are many
questions of scientific interest that cannot be answered with long-term
measurements.  For instance, if a researcher wants to study the amount of
seasonal variability then short-term measurements are appropriate, and indeed
required.  If a researcher wants to study the extent to which short-term
measurements can be used to estimate long-term concentrations, then short-term
measurements are necessary for that too.  Short-term measurements
are good for many things. But they cannot be used for everything. 
Specifically, they are not good for quantifying the radon risk to a home's
occupants.You initially said "An annual measurement is more a study of
the occupant behavior on ventilation than of radon behavior, so it is hardly a
scientific study of radon behavior," and now you say that if you are
interested in long-term exposures " then you cannot use science to predict or
estimate."  From these statements you seem to be saying that long-term
measurements are somehow inherently deficient compared to short-term
measurements if one is interested in "science."  I disagree with that
suggestion; in fact, I think it is obviously wrong.  But that is the only
thing I disagree with.  Specifically, I don't have any objection
whatsoever to using short-term measurements where it is appropriate to do so,
and I think there are indeed cases where it is appropriate to do so.
Phil PriceLawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. On
Jun 21, 2011, at 10:46 AM, Bernard L. Cohen wrote:>   
    ---In science, it is the time honored principle that we break
complex problems into well defined parts and try to understand each part
separately before attacking the complex problem. In the situation under
discussion, you are considering the complex problem of evaluating exposure to
individual people. The parts of the problem include (1) the behavior of radon
and (2) the behavior of the individual people in ventilation adjustments
(opening windows, forced air systems, etc). As a scientist, I was trying to
understand (1),radon behavior, independent of behavior of occupants. Thus I
studied variations in radon levels over time in Winter when ventilation
changes were minimal and windows were kept closed, and I studied seasonal and
year-to-year variations in large numbers of houses with windows closed, and I
reported scientifically meaningful averages. For doing this, short term
measurements is a valid method. Long term measurements are not normally valid
for studying the radon behavior aspect of the problem
separately.>        If all that you are interested
in is the complex problem of exposure to occupants of a given house, I
certainly agree that long term exposures are the best way to do this. But then
you cannot use science to predict or estimate, but you must do the measurement
on each house. I hope you will pardon me for trying to use science as far as
it will take us.> > On 6/21/2011 1:11 PM, Phil Price
wrote:>>> Bernard Cohen says:>>>
>>>       ---When people speak of
an annual test, surely they do not mean maintaining windows closed and no
variation in ventilation conditions thru the whole year. I made changes in
ventilation for my test house giving changes of a factor of 10 in the radon
level. An annual measurement is more a study of the occupant behavior on
ventilation than of radon behavior, so it is hardly a scientific study of
radon behavior. No wonder that large variations were found from short term
windows closed, constant ventilation measurements.>> Even under
constant ventilation conditions, there can be a lot of temporal variability in
indoor radon concentrations, mostly driven by weather conditions.>>
>> And I have to differ with the statement that "An annual
measurement is more a study of the occupant behavior on ventilation than of
radon behavior, so it is hardly a scientific study of radon behavior." 
Usually it is NEITHER a study of occupant behavior on ventilation NOR a
scientific study of radon behavior: It is an attempt to estimate the long-term
exposure of building occupants to radon and its decay products.  Although
it does have some shortcomings when used this way -- for instance, it measures
only radon and not the decay products, and it does not account for systematic
differences in concentrations when people are or aren't at home -- it is
surely a much more accurate measure of radon exposure than is a short-term
measurement.>> >> Phil Price>> Lawrence Berkeley
National Laboratory>> >> ********** 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 ***********