« Too Much Choice? | Main | Simple Incompetence »
March 16, 2006
Radon
Norm of that blog discovers why you don’t want to live in Cornwall. Or Devon.
Or Wales actually, but then everyone already knew that.
March 16, 2006 in Health Care | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c2d3e53ef00d834b1219669e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Radon:
Comments
We had a radon detector in our house for years. Never showed anything to worry about. As proof of how safe it is in Wales, just look how I turned out.
Or rather, don't.
Posted by: Tim Newman | Mar 16, 2006 2:52:40 PM
Same here.
Posted by: Mark Holland | Mar 16, 2006 3:06:54 PM
Why not just open the windows? It's a gas, for heavens' sake.
None of this was a problem before the current fad for hermetically-sealed houses.
Posted by: Andrew Duffin | Mar 16, 2006 4:24:30 PM
The door would be a better option since Radon is heavier than air. Many new Devon houses have to be built with a cavity at the lowest point for the Radon to collect in so that it can be pumped out of the house should the levels be found too high.
Posted by: chris | Mar 16, 2006 6:47:40 PM
Is living in Cornwall more dangerous than living around Chernoble?
Tim adds: At a guess I’d say that it’s dependent upon how close to Chernobyl. But certainly, Cornish Radon has killed more over the years than Chernobyl.
Posted by: Rob Read | Mar 17, 2006 10:54:18 AM
Commercial properties come with obligations to take protective measures against radon in affected areas. Residential houses, as I understand it, do not. Lack of regulation leading to peoples' deaths? Surely not.
Tim adds: Sure. Happens all the time. More to the point, it should happen all the time. There’s only so much money to go round so we’d do best to spend money on those things that save lives for the least cost. If it costs (for example) $500 tosave a life by requiring compulsory fire alarms and $50,000 requiring radon monitors then we should do the first and only the second after we’ve finished the first.
There really are potentially life saving regulations that cost too much to be worth it....in ffact, that if we implemented them would kill more people as we ignored the lower cost ones ’coz we didn’t have any money left.
Posted by: Katherine | Mar 17, 2006 12:17:57 PM
It's bound to be the fault of the Americans. I'll bet ChimpyBushMacHitler is behind it. Some sort of plan to let Haliburton take over the clotted cream industry.
That doesn't explain Wales though. Then again no one's managed to do that in centuries.
RM
Posted by: The Remittance Man | Mar 17, 2006 2:05:48 PM
Costs start from £25 to £1000. The average amount taken as a Radon Bond where a purchaser retains some of the purchase price to pay for possible changes needed is around £750 to £1000.
According to this:
http://www.seered.co.uk/radon39.htm
"the cost per life-year benefit is therefore only £12,000". How does that measure up?
Tim adds: Better than I thought it would (although I’m more familiar with the measurement "per life saved per year".)
At this price, why regulation at all? Why not let the householder maketheir own decision. As they do with smoking, which causes the same disease, lung cancer.
Posted by: Katherine | Mar 17, 2006 3:15:25 PM
