Talk:Radon/Archive 2

Under the heading "Testing and mitigation" the page states: "The four principal ways of reducing the amount of radon accumulating in a house are[6][128]" and then incorrectly reports the content of reference 128, which states:

Radon levels in homes can be reduced by:

   * increasing under-floor ventilation;
   * installing a radon sump system in the basement or under a solid floor;
   * avoiding the passage of radon from the basement into living rooms;
   * sealing floors and walls; and
   * improving the ventilation of the house .

i.e there are FIVE methods, not four as claimed.

I notice also that almost all the references are US-based and that there is not even a wikipedia page named "radon barrier"! In short, the article is hugely biased by omitting the main radon mitigation measure used in the UK and elsewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.85.79 (talk) 14:06, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you could add some WP:RS for what you say, either here or directly in the article. Reify-tech (talk) 14:05, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Radon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080508064535/http://amtamassage.org:80/journal/winter03_journal/balneology.html to https://www.amtamassage.org/journal/winter03_journal/balneology.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20020107060646/http://www.petros.cz:80/spa/spa_ja.asp to http://www.petros.cz/spa/spa_ja.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:59, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I gather that radon by itself is not of much danger for the organism, because, as an inert gas, it is not absorbed; however, its decay products are dangerous, since they can easily accumulate in the lungs. Can anyone confirm? David.Monniaux 07:40, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Basically, yes. Lungs and bones, to be specific. --Fastfission 00:35, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I've been reading about the health risks and effects of radon gas lately, and as far as I can tell, all the studies that claim to show an increased cancer risk, either lack reasonable controls for other carcinogens, or are dealing with very high levels of radon, like that which would be found in a Uranium mine. This concerns me, that this articles description of the dangers of radon gas is grossly misleading.

Here's an example describing in detail flaws with current beliefs of radon health risks: http://www.forensic-applications.com/radon/radon.html ElectroDrache (talk) 06:56, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Dead wrong. The risk of radon is well established, and its attributable risk is routinely calculated. That page can be summarized as "RARR THE EPA IS BAD" - while neglecting that every other radiation protection agency in the world has also independently come to the conclusion that radon is dangerous. Including the ICRP, which is a purely scientific organization of the highest standard. Just hit up PubMed and see for yourself. Kolbasz (talk) 11:48, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the daughter products are the problem. There is some interesting science here: the lungs normally sweep out by cilial action any dust, to which the radon daughters attach. Rather ironically, if the radon is dust-free the daughter products attach directly to the lung surface where they cause maximum damage since they are far too small to be swept out of the lungs. A "dirty" atmosphere is hence somewhat radiologically healthier.

   N.E.Whitehead

It is important to note than the smoke is closely correlated with the lung cancer in high concentration Radon environments because the cigarettes smoke cause the absorption of the the daughter products AND the radon itself in the lungs.--Wanblee 13:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Radon. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.allmeasures.com/Formulae/d1/d2/d3/Results2_2.asp?formula=2&material=Radon+%5BRn%5D

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:59, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

The link for ref #57 doesn't quite work. It's supposed to take you to a PDF file, but just gets you to a company website: "Health hazard data" (PDF). The Linde Group. Retrieved 2008-06-26. The information it references seems pretty interesting: "A 1000 Bq/m3 (relatively high) concentration corresponds to 0.17 picogram per cubic meter. The average concentration of radon in the atmosphere is about 6×10−20 atoms of radon for each molecule in the air, or about 150 atoms in each ml of air.[57] " Zyxwv99 (talk) 23:19, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

The company has an updated Safety Sheet on its site which no longer has a composition breakdown (here). The Wayback Machine has the older one, though, and I've added it. Debouch (talk) 03:59, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I've been able to confirm the reliability of the numbers. If you go to WolframAlpha and type "1 Becquerel radon-222 grams" (without the quotes) you get "1.75704×10^-16 grams" and "0.175704 fg (femtograms)." After that you just play with the zeroes. Zyxwv99 (talk) 02:28, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Although it may be the preferred term used by some organisations, they do acknowledge the other common usage of "daughters", and I would personally use that term because it is quite standard in the radiochemical literature for all radioactive decay chains, not just those from Rn. Double sharp (talk) 08:00, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. "Progeny" might be preferred by some for whatever reason, but "radon daughters" is by far the most common term you'll find in standard literature. And a quick check on Scholar suggests that it's holding its own even in articles published this year. Kolbasz (talk) 17:23, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

(This is at the end of the "physical properties" section.) Cool: can we have a source? I get that the explanation is high-school-level material (Rn forming stronger van der Waals interactions with solvent molecules due to its oversize electron cloud), but it would be nice to allude to it. Double sharp (talk) 14:38, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

If one needed radon for scientific research, how would it be produced? Would you extract natural Rn from uranium ores, or would it be synthesized? Double sharp (talk) 10:10, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

From parent radionuclides with more manageable half-lives, e.g. radium-226 for radon-222. The long-lived (half-life: 1600 years) radium-226 decays to the ephemeral (half-life: 3.8 days) radon-222 (you will in fact get an equal activity of Ra-226 and Rn-222 in a phenomenon known as secular equilibrium). You wouldn't need pure radium - basically, anything above it in the decay chain (uranium series for radon-222) would do. Since radon is a gaseous element but its parents are not, it's easily extracted. Kolbasz (talk) 11:06, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Belatedly added, albeit without a citation. Thank you! Double sharp (talk) 14:41, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

The article seems to suggest that the Curies were the first to recognize the existence of a heavy radioactive gas, and in fact elements.vanderkrogt.net credits them with the discovery of radon. Rutherford and Owens (1899) can't really be said to suggest the existence of a new element. Rutherford did characterize and name thorium emanation, but that was in a paper he authored by himself (and not until 1900, though of course the work could have been done in 1899). So who discovered radon? Squee3 (talk) 20:44, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Surely the discoverer has to be the one who actually finds the new element and recognises it as such, right? The Curies, IIRC, thought of the gas as some sort of "pure radioactivity". Double sharp (talk) 02:08, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Makes sense. But it seems to me that radon was first recognized as a new element in Rutherford (1900), not in Rutherford and Owens (1899). Please correct me if I'm wrong. Squee3 (talk) 01:16, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

There does seem to be something to it, actually. I know just the title might cause some people to disbelieve this book, but look at the Politically Incorrect Guide to Science . It has footnotes. If something has footnotes, you have to believe it ;) --AimeeLee 21:40, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I just found out, that according to http://www.epa.gov/radon/pubs/citguide.html the tests for radon risks were done on miners. Doesn't that seem a bit odd to you? Read the article about coal mining in the early and mid 1900's. I don't know whether conditions have changed, but it sounds like it would impact the study. --AimeeLee 22:02, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

This is from the NAS report: "The most extensive ecologic study has been carried out by Cohen, who collected a large data base of short-term radon measurements in residences across the U.S. (Cohen 1990, 1995). Grouping the data by county, Cohen found a negative correlation between average radon level and age-adjusted lung cancer rate. This has led some to conclude that radon, at typical indoor levels, presents no risk for lung cancer."

On the other hand, Krewski et al. 2006 conclude in their meta-analysis that "Collectively, these results provide direct evidence of an association between residential radon and lung cancer risk," but if you look at their Figure 2 on page 555, the data sure look like there is no detectable risk increase. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.12.184.2 (talk) 20:29, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I've taken out some newspaper advertisements from the 1950s regarding "health benefits" and a poorly explained diagram. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 22:50, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

There is a lot of redundancy and circular discussion in the lead. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 14:32, 13 January 2017 (UTC) I have tried to address this problem. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 14:47, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Ever since the image of radon in {{Infobox radon}} was deleted, nobody has replaced it. I’m pretty sure radon is legal (as noted at the FfD) as it is not one that can be used in nuclear weapons. 165.91.13.149 (talk) 16:41, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Radon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.facts-about.org.uk/science-element-radon.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://progenygrp.com/why_measure_rdps.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cheec.uiowa.edu/misc/radon.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.onepetro.org/mslib/servlet/onepetropreview?id=00008890
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cancer.org/docroot/PED/content/PED_1_3x_Known_and_Probable_Carcinogens.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130829005508/http://www.aarst.org/images/PCPanelRadonTest.pdf to https://www.aarst.org/images/PCPanelRadonTest.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://pq.lung.ca/environment-environnement/radon/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.usinspect.com/resources-for-you/house-facts/environmental-concerns-home/radon/geology-radon

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:23, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

It does not really make sense to credit Dorn's discovery of ²²²Rn as the discovery of Rn the element. ²²⁰Rn had previously been discovered by Rutherford and Owens in 1899, and Dorn even cites them in his paper: "Nach RUTHERFORD nimmt die durch ThO₂ erregte sekundäre Aktivität ziemlich langsam mit der Zeit ab und sinkt in etwa 11 Stunden auf die Hälfte.", and earlier he mentions that Rutherford called his substance emanation. The Curies had also noticed this emanation in 1899, but it was Dorn who characterised it. This article also suggests that Rutherford and Owens should be considered the discoverers of the element. (Such is the confusion between radon the isotope and radon the element, since Rutherford and Owens discovered the shorter-lived thoron.) Double sharp (talk) 12:20, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

In fact, because of this issue, I wonder if we might need to put a hatnote saying something like "This article is about the element. For the most stable isotope (also often called "radon" without qualification, see Radon-222." Double sharp (talk) 04:14, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

I think I've addressed this by adding an entry on ²²²Rn to Radon (disambiguation). Double sharp (talk) 05:16, 9 February 2018 (UTC)