| A few months ago, I decided to do a radon test of my house in a Detroit suburb. Radon is a naturally occurring radioactive gas from the decay of uranium found in rocks, soil and groundwater. It's pretty much everywhere. It's also dangerous. For nonsmokers, it's the leading cause of lung cancer. We did a radon test shortly after our house was built in the early 1990s and it was fine. But when the Amazon bot recently suggested that I get a $15 radon test when I was shopping for a new carbon monoxide alarm for my basement office, I figured, "sure." I left the test in a center area of my basement for a few days and paid $5 postage to send it back. Radon is measured in picocuries per liter. Anything at or more than 4 picocuries per liter is considered high risk. I was pretty shocked when my test came back at nearly 7.8 picocuries per liter. A follow-up test confirmed that reading, and in some areas of my house it measured 9 picocuries per liter. The only thing I know is that sometime between 1993 and 2024, my radon levels became unsafe. That's why Les Smith, who runs Michigan's indoor radon program, says people should test when they first move into a new house or rental, and then get a new test every two to five years. Home improvements such as new windows, fresh cracks in a foundation or an added attic ventilation fan (in my case) can change how much radon gets sucked into your home. But there are very few places in the US where radon tests are required. And even if the levels are high, few localities require anyone, even a landlord, to do anything about it. The US Environmental Protection Agency has a map of radon hot spots nationwide. In Michigan, about a quarter of homes have an unsafe level of radon when testing is performed. If you don't want to pay for a test, they are available for free at many local health departments, especially in January, which is a national radon action month. A $20 test is nothing compared to the $1,000 to $2,500 cost to install a system to keep the radon out of your house. For me, spending the money was a no-brainer. Workers installed a suction system in my basement that traps the radon gas and vents it into the air above my house where it safely dissipates. My radon levels now are about 0.3 picocuries per liter. Smith says that for low-income people, the cost of the fix means many don't even want to take the test. (Somewhat ironically, as we were discussing this, Smith was having a system installed at his own home because his radon levels recently increased.) There are very few programs to help people get a radon mitigation system installed if they can't afford it, says Jill Heins, the senior director of an American Lung Association program that educates people about the risks of poor indoor air quality, including radon. There are some programs that use federal funds to help, but it's not systematic or common. The best solution would be for radon tests and mitigation to be required the same way necessities such as a furnace or smoke detectors are expected in every home, she says. But that's a long way off.
Even the medical system isn't really prepared to help, Heins says. Surveys have shown that physicians often don't discuss radon dangers with their patients. I brought it up with my doctor, wondering whether my wife and I should be screened for lung cancer as a precaution. Turns out, for nonsmokers, insurance doesn't pay for the screening. That's another $200 many people don't have. — Jeff Green | 
No comments:
Post a Comment