Radon reasoning
James Hill
Originally published 09:41 a.m., February 9, 2008
Updated 09:41 a.m., February 9, 2008
So Dr. Barnett wants “big brother” (government) to further protect us from everything harmful. Will our government pay for the testing his bill will require? Of course, because radon is the product of naturally-occurring atoms found in all earth materials, the stone, concrete and bricks used in building will emit radon at a detectable level. There is absolutely no way to escape it. So has Dr. Barnett already had his home and office buildings tested? Has he already done the work of abatement on his own buildings? If not, that is where he should be working instead of “do as I say, not as I do.”
After radon, we should, of course, be attempting to reduce cosmic radiation which can be responsible for skin cancers. And there is a good indication that every person who had ever died of cancer has, at some time, consumed dihydrogenmonoxide, (water). We must, of course, reduce exposure to that material too. Will Dr. Barnett be willing to introduce this legislation for our protection?
There is evidence of naturally-occurring uranium in groundwater throughout central Kansas and central Oklahoma. Will anything be done to abate this? Why not? It is in the same category as radon.
Note: This is a letter to the editor.
eiggohp (anonymous) says...
It would be great if everyone got a home radon test kit and did their own testing to make sure their family is safe from it, but I do not agree that the government should make it mandatory to have this done before selling a house. What about the residents who are living there already, aren't they just as important as future ones? I would urge people, especially with basements with bedrooms, etc, to take the initiative to keep themselves safe.....not a bill from "big brother".
February 9, 2008 at 12:01 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
roger (anonymous) says...
I don't claim to know much about radon gas, but I think any basement needs the air changed on a regular basis. I bet a fan in one of 2 open windows occasionally might be a better thing than a new law which puts homes just a little further out of the poors reach.
February 9, 2008 at 3:25 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )