Hacker News Reader

Comment by ternus | Hacker News Reader

Tangential, but if you haven't had your house tested for radon, I strongly recommend it. Radon is a radioactive decay product of uranium in rock and soil, naturally accumulates in houses, and is the second leading cause of lung cancer in the US after smoking.

I got a RadonEye meter to check the levels in my old place. It was around 4 pCi/l, which is apparently equivalent to smoking a pack a day in terms of relative cancer risk. After adding some ventilation, it dropped to lower than 1. Great.

The next place I moved into had a radon level of 14+ (!!) pCi/l. I couldn't believe the meter reading, so double-checked with another meter, which produced the same result. Got a radon mitigation system installed.

Seriously, check it out, especially if your place sits below grade or you live in a risk area. It could save your life.

View on HN

Identical situation. In the hills of LA, bought a house, tested at 14+. Down below 2 most of the time after mitigation. Found out the hills of LA are one of the radon hotspots in California. I talked to many real estate agents, contractors, and neighbors and no one is aware of it, no one took me seriously, and generally no one wants to hear about it.

Definitely recommend. We were at around 14 (pCi/l) as well. Peaks up to 20. Got an active mitigation system installed last year for around $1k. Hasn’t exceeded 2 since.

Unforeseen benefit of no longer having to run my dehumidifier this summer. So it’ll end up paying for itself in electricity cost after maybe a decade hah.

Do you guys live in abandoned missile silos?!

It comes from the decay of naturally occurring uranium in the ground.

Thank you for posting this. Had never heard of such things.

This and the sibling comment boggle my mind. Around here, it seems like requesting a radon test is standard when looking at buying a house. Installing radon mitigation is likewise relatively straight forward.

Are basements less common out there? Maybe it's just because we tend to have basements that are made into livable space, where the risk of exposure is higher.

Ah, it's because I'm in Australia.

>Average radon levels in Australian homes are only a little larger than the radon levels in outside air and are of minimal concern to the health.

>The average concentration of radon in Australian homes is about 10 Bq m³. This is less than in many other countries and compares to a global average indoor value of 40 Bq m³.

I checked a Radon map and my area is only 5-10Bqm3.

Naturally, Americans do things the hard way and measure radon in pCi/L. According to Google,

> 1 pCi/L is equal to 37 Bq/m3

Our EPA recommends remediation if your home measures more than two, strongly so if it measures more than 4 pCi/L.

That 4 number is supposedly equivalent to smoking 8 cigarettes a day, in terms of cancer risk.

Here in the upper Midwest US, geology creating more radon buildup combined with cold winters mean that our basements are in a constant state of slightly negative air pressure, drawing it inside.

Not only can it enter through cracks in the concrete basement walls and floors, but many or most homes will have an opening in the floor somewhere for a sump pump to help move spring snow melt moisture away from the house.

Supposedly, between 1/3 and 2/5 homes in the US have or need radon remediation, and it supposedly is the second-leading cause of lung cancer here, after smoking tobacco.

I'm vaguely aware that radon testing is one of the things you should do when buying a house, but it's never really come up as an actual problem for anyone I know. My indoor air sensor claims that my apartment averages 0.6 (pCi/l), so it's very far from being an issue.

It's very location dependent, some areas have low average levels.

https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2018-12/documents/ra...

Its extremely common, and usually part of the inspection when buying and selling a home.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com