Anonymous wrote:Get it. If it passes, great. If not, get the seller to remediate.

Only if it's part of the contract.

And some homes can be so high remediation won't help.

I'm going to need some proof of this. TIA!

Anonymous wrote:The inspector is a dumb ass! Find a new one. To begin, visit the EPA.gov site. They have a brochure about understanding radon. It's a natural occurring gas that can effect one home but not those next to it. The radon gas seeps in through minor cracks in the foundation. It can attribute to cancer. If the test comes up positive, the seller should remediate if its in the contract. If not, you know and can expect to pay $900-$1200 to have it taken care of. Your health is worth the $150 test.

+1, you'll get a good overview of what radon is and why you really want that test. Even if you're in a situation in which you feel like you can't ask for it as part of the inspection, I would do it. Our house was built in 1950 and the basement is a walkout, and radon levels were sky-high (I think 75 maybe?).

We had a remediation system installed for $1100 that brought the level down to 2. We will recheck in the future, as well. Definitely worth it to avoid worrying about lung cancer.

Anonymous wrote:we have a 2005 house and we got one. Good thing we did because the basement had elevated levels of radon. The sellers put a radon remediation system before we purchased. We have 2 kids that are always playing in the basement so I am glad that we got that done.

And some homes can be so high remediation won't help. Rare but why gamble for $100?

we have a 2005 house and we got one. Good thing we did because the basement had elevated levels of radon. The sellers put a radon remediation system before we purchased. We have 2 kids that are always playing in the basement so I am glad that we got that done.

It isn't a positive or negative test. My understanding is that almost all houses in this area will have some level, it's just whether or not it's in the "safe"range.

Also, age of the house makes no difference. My 1950's house had low levels, but my friend's very nice house built in the 90's needed a remediation system installed.

It's just information, like anything else your inspector finds. It's up to you to determine what to do with that information. I always think the more information you have when making a big purchase, the better.

Test it yourself if the presence of radon isn't going to impact purchase of the property and you intend to used the basement as a living space.

The test is $150- I'd get it done so I wouldn't have to worry about it.

The inspector is a dumb ass! Find a new one. To begin, visit the EPA.gov site. They have a brochure about understanding radon. It's a natural occurring gas that can effect one home but not those next to it. The radon gas seeps in through minor cracks in the foundation. It can attribute to cancer. If the test comes up positive, the seller should remediate if its in the contract. If not, you know and can expect to pay $900-$1200 to have it taken care of. Your health is worth the $150 test.

Anonymous wrote:Radon is very prevalent in this area. I'd get the test.

+1

Do you really want a higher than background amount of radiation in your home?

Get it. If it passes, great. If not, get the seller to remediate.

Definitely get one but know that it's easy to fix and usually 1k or less.

The inspectors last 20 tests are irrelevant unless he tested that specific house.

Radon is very prevalent in this area. I'd get the test.

I think it varies on the neighborhood and the construction. A house built in the 50's will not be as air tight so radon is less likely to be a problem but it could be.

I am about to get a home inspection. The house was built in the 1950's. The inspector asked if I wanted a radon test. Of course, it's not included in the inspection price. How often, & in what situation does radon pop up? He told me in the last 20 radon tests that he had done, they all came back negative.