Dangerous levels of Radon found in 28 MCPS schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

And if you truly do care about this issue and accuracy, I'd ask you to use your interest to press for MCPS to take swift action in the exceeding schools by retesting (in a responsible way), making those results public immediately, and remediating the schools which exceed (like the one my 5 and 7 year olds are in) as quickly as possible upon the results confirming the exceedance. And then set up a program of annual or biannual retesting of all affected schools. Again, radon tests are cheap. There's no excuse for not doing it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

I cited data and posted a link from cancer.org. Are their data inaccurate?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I cited data and posted a link from cancer.org. Are their data inaccurate? Did I cite the data incorrectly?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No. You misconstrued the meaning of that data. And you know it.
You hardly maintained scientific accuracy when you pretended the lung cancer survival rates were far higher than they actually are. SMH

I cited data and posted a link from cancer.org. Are their data inaccurate?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I cited data and posted a link from cancer.org. Are their data inaccurate? Did I cite the data incorrectly?

Yes. You described the data inaccurately because you said it contradicted the survival rate I stated. As you now know.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I cited data and posted a link from cancer.org. Are their data inaccurate? Did I cite the data incorrectly?

Yes. You described the data inaccurately because you said it contradicted the survival rate I stated. As you now know.

No, I didn't say that. I said:

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-smallc...ell-lung-cancer-survival-rates

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

No. You misconstrued the meaning of that data. And you know it.

How did I misconstrue the meaning of the data?

[Anonymous]

I just got an MCPS email about this issue.

[Anonymous]

MCPS issued a press release on the radon issue. On a Sunday evening. Odd.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I am not "paniking" I want to know who high levels of radon were not reported or mentioned to me as a parent of students that attend one of these schools. I want to know why nothing was done for 3 years. I want to know what would have happened if a news source did not run this on their website and nightly news. I am pretty sure nothing. There are teachers that have stayed in the SAME class everyday for those 3 years. Teachers that have been pregnant. They aren't to be guinea pigs in what you or someone else might think are not "too bad" of levels. They are over the limit. Some are double the limit. Who cares if the chances may not incredibly high. But there is an INCREASED risk that no one can deny. And if those levels were 50%-100% over the limit then, whose to say they aren't 200-400% over the limit now - 3 years later.

That's not how it works.

Radon levels do indeed go up. It can stay the same too but it can also go up. It isn't the same exact number for years and years.

And it can also go down.

Okay MCPS representative lurking on DCUM. But if you blow it off for 3 years you have NO IDEA what those levels are. Many of the schools who were okay could now be high too. Stop rationalizing.

Not an MCPS representative. Also not lurking.

Do you get your basement tested for radon every 3 years on grounds that the last testing was 3 years ago so you have NO IDEA what those levels are today?

NP. We get radon checked annually.

[Anonymous]

Hi- Im a NP sending my child to Fallsmead next year. Did this issue ever get resolved and remediated? Are they testing annually now?