Dangerous levels of Radon found in 28 MCPS schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Radon is hooey. Where is the evidence of harm?

Just about a zillion epidemiological studies, which is why every state and federal environmental agency has declared it a carcinogen. But don't let facts stop you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Actually, yes. And I've never exceeded. But we are in an area where radon is an issue and the test are cheap, so why not. But your point is a failure anyway, because these schools *exceeded* and by the regulatory guidelines were supposed to be retested and weren't. Because MCPS put the test results in a drawer and did nothing about it. Pathetically incompetent.

You get your basement tested for radon every 3 years? Why? How much have the results changed?

Minimally. But we did a renovation and we're considering using the basement as a playroom, so it made sense. The test is easy and cheap. I'm unusually aware of environmental health issues because of my background (biostatistics) so we are more on top of this stuff than most.

OK, so you retested after conditions changed. Would you still retest every three years if conditions didn't change? And if so, why?

This is not about the EPA's recommendation to retest if the results are above a certain level. This is about the PP's contention that MCPS needs to retest because, for all we know, the results have doubled in the last three years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Radon is hooey. Where is the evidence of harm?

No, no, radon really actually exists.

Also, here is the evidence of harm from the IARC, which is part of the WHO:

http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monographs/vol43/mono43-14.pdf
http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monographs/vol43/

Yes, it's from 1988, but so far there doesn't seem to be any counter-evidence of radon NOT being a carcinogen. Unless you know of any?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

The survival rate for lung cancer is about 17%. So let's not rely on the difference between getting it and dying of it.

Where did you get that from? This source says that five-year survival rates range from 49% if diagnosed as Stage IA non-small-cell lung cancer to 1% if diagnosed as Stage IV, based on people diagnosed with lung cancer between 1998 and 2000.

http://www.cancer.org/cancer/lungcancer-non-smallcell/detailedguide/non-small-cell-lung-cancer-survival-rates

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Actually, yes. And I've never exceeded. But we are in an area where radon is an issue and the test are cheap, so why not. But your point is a failure anyway, because these schools *exceeded* and by the regulatory guidelines were supposed to be retested and weren't. Because MCPS put the test results in a drawer and did nothing about it. Pathetically incompetent.

You get your basement tested for radon every 3 years? Why? How much have the results changed?

Minimally. But we did a renovation and we're considering using the basement as a playroom, so it made sense. The test is easy and cheap. I'm unusually aware of environmental health issues because of my background (biostatistics) so we are more on top of this stuff than most.

OK, so you retested after conditions changed. Would you still retest every three years if conditions didn't change? And if so, why?

This is not about the EPA's recommendation to retest if the results are above a certain level. This is about the PP's contention that MCPS needs to retest because, for all we know, the results have doubled in the last three years.

Yes, they should retest every few years regardless at schools. But that's not the issue here. Here, the issue is that they exceeded and still didn't retest! For years! Why are you trying to ignore that. If your position is "people shouldn't panic" then fine. But if your point is they shouldn't have retested and remediated after these exceeding levels were found, that's indefensible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The survival rate for lung cancer is about 17%. So let's not rely on the difference between getting it and dying of it.

Where did you get that from? This source says that five-year survival rates range from 49% if diagnosed as Stage IA non-small-cell lung cancer to 1% if diagnosed as Stage IV, based on people diagnosed with lung cancer between 1998 and 2000.

http://www.cancer.org/cancer/lungcancer-non-smallcell/detailedguide/non-small-cell-lung-cancer-survival-rates

Look harder. What percent are caught at stage one? Hint: not many.

[Anonymous]

http://www.lung.org/lung-health-and-diseases/lung-disease-lookup/lung-cancer/learn-about-lung-cancer/lung-cancer-fact-sheet.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The survival rate for lung cancer is about 17%. So let's not rely on the difference between getting it and dying of it.

Where did you get that from? This source says that five-year survival rates range from 49% if diagnosed as Stage IA non-small-cell lung cancer to 1% if diagnosed as Stage IV, based on people diagnosed with lung cancer between 1998 and 2000.

http://www.cancer.org/cancer/lungcancer-non-smallcell/detailedguide/non-small-cell-lung-cancer-survival-rates

Look harder. What percent are caught at stage one? Hint: not many.

If you're the 17% PP, could you please just provide a link to where you got that number from?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The survival rate for lung cancer is about 17%. So let's not rely on the difference between getting it and dying of it.

Where did you get that from? This source says that five-year survival rates range from 49% if diagnosed as Stage IA non-small-cell lung cancer to 1% if diagnosed as Stage IV, based on people diagnosed with lung cancer between 1998 and 2000.

http://www.cancer.org/cancer/lungcancer-non-smallcell/detailedguide/non-small-cell-lung-cancer-survival-rates

Look harder. What percent are caught at stage one? Hint: not many.

If you're the 17% PP, could you please just provide a link to where you got that number from?

Just did. But you'll have to read more than the first paragraph.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The survival rate for lung cancer is about 17%. So let's not rely on the difference between getting it and dying of it.

Where did you get that from? This source says that five-year survival rates range from 49% if diagnosed as Stage IA non-small-cell lung cancer to 1% if diagnosed as Stage IV, based on people diagnosed with lung cancer between 1998 and 2000.

http://www.cancer.org/cancer/lungcancer-non-smallcell/detailedguide/non-small-cell-lung-cancer-survival-rates

Look harder. What percent are caught at stage one? Hint: not many.

If you're the 17% PP, could you please just provide a link to where you got that number from?

^^^never mind, I see you did.

Regardless, the incidence rate of lung cancer is not the same as the death rate from lung cancer. And the EPA is a more reliable source of information than a company that sells radon tests over the Internet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Yes, they should retest every few years regardless at schools. But that's not the issue here. Here, the issue is that they exceeded and still didn't retest! For years! Why are you trying to ignore that. If your position is "people shouldn't panic" then fine. But if your point is they shouldn't have retested and remediated after these exceeding levels were found, that's indefensible.

There are lots of issues here. MCPS's failure to follow the EPA recommendations about retesting is not the only issue. Panic is another issue. So is general ignorance of science. So is an organization that thinks that, if MCPS does something, that thing is by definition bad, because MCPS did it. So is a school system that sometimes makes that organization's work way too easy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The survival rate for lung cancer is about 17%. So let's not rely on the difference between getting it and dying of it.

Where did you get that from? This source says that five-year survival rates range from 49% if diagnosed as Stage IA non-small-cell lung cancer to 1% if diagnosed as Stage IV, based on people diagnosed with lung cancer between 1998 and 2000.

http://www.cancer.org/cancer/lungcancer-non-smallcell/detailedguide/non-small-cell-lung-cancer-survival-rates

Look harder. What percent are caught at stage one? Hint: not many.

If you're the 17% PP, could you please just provide a link to where you got that number from?

^^^never mind, I see you did.

Regardless, the incidence rate of lung cancer is not the same as the death rate from lung cancer. And the EPA is a more reliable source of information than a company that sells radon tests over the Internet.

You're quibbling at the margins in an attempt to minimize a known hazard. This is t controversial. Radon causes lung cancer, which kills over eighty percent of the people who get it, and these schools exceed the radon limits. And McPs knew and kept the information private and did nothing about it. You want to defend that? Seriously?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

^^^never mind, I see you did.

Regardless, the incidence rate of lung cancer is not the same as the death rate from lung cancer. And the EPA is a more reliable source of information than a company that sells radon tests over the Internet.

You're quibbling at the margins in an attempt to minimize a known hazard. This is t controversial. Radon causes lung cancer, which kills over eighty percent of the people who get it, and these schools exceed the radon limits. And McPs knew and kept the information private and did nothing about it. You want to defend that? Seriously?

Well, you call it quibbling at the margins, I call it maintaining scientific accuracy. And the reason I'm maintaining scientific accuracy is because I think that scientific accuracy is important. When I'm distinguishing between incidence rate and death rate, I'm not defending MCPS. I'm distinguishing between incidence rate and death rate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Yes, they should retest every few years regardless at schools. But that's not the issue here. Here, the issue is that they exceeded and still didn't retest! For years! Why are you trying to ignore that. If your position is "people shouldn't panic" then fine. But if your point is they shouldn't have retested and remediated after these exceeding levels were found, that's indefensible.

There are lots of issues here. MCPS's failure to follow the EPA recommendations about retesting is not the only issue. Panic is another issue. So is general ignorance of science. So is an organization that thinks that, if MCPS does something, that thing is by definition bad, because MCPS did it. So is a school system that sometimes makes that organization's work way too easy.

You've exhibited quite a bit of ignorance (with your obvious misunderstanding of the lung cancer survival stats) and a lot of interest in distracting from the real issue here: schools exceeding radon levels and what should have been and should now be done about it. Let's go back to focusing on that, okay? Your ridiculous notion that "panic" is the issue here is a nice sideshow, but no.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

^^^never mind, I see you did.

Regardless, the incidence rate of lung cancer is not the same as the death rate from lung cancer. And the EPA is a more reliable source of information than a company that sells radon tests over the Internet.

You're quibbling at the margins in an attempt to minimize a known hazard. This is t controversial. Radon causes lung cancer, which kills over eighty percent of the people who get it, and these schools exceed the radon limits. And McPs knew and kept the information private and did nothing about it. You want to defend that? Seriously?

Well, you call it quibbling at the margins, I call it maintaining scientific accuracy. And the reason I'm maintaining scientific accuracy is because I think that scientific accuracy is important. When I'm distinguishing between incidence rate and death rate, I'm not defending MCPS. I'm distinguishing between incidence rate and death rate.

You hardly maintained scientific accuracy when you pretended the lung cancer survival rates were far higher than they actually are. SMH