Jump to content

Talk:Radon/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Radon Testing and mitigation

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:

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

checkY 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 11:59, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Dangers

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,[1] 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:

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

checkY 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 IITalk 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)

Regarding the term "radon progeny"

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)

Solubility of radon

(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)

And production?

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)

Who discovered it?

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)

Health Benefits Of Radon

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)

Lead ("lede") section redundancy

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)

Image

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:

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)

discovery of radon

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)

Radon concentration scale: absolute upper limit

For the concentration scale table: Would it be appropriate (or not) to amend the bottom of the table with an entry representing the maximal concentration of pure 222Rn (at standard temperature/pressure) if only for comparison purposes? It could be considered the theoretical worst case scenario in regard to radiation exposure (5.5*1019 Bq/m3 = 1.5*1018 pCi/L). DWIII (talk) 20:23, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

BTW, here's what it would look like:

Bq/m3 pCi/L Occurrence example
1 ~0.027 Radon concentration at the shores of large oceans is typically 1 Bq/m3.

Radon trace concentration above oceans or in Antarctica can be lower than 0.1 Bq/m3.

... ... (omitted)
1,000,000 27000 Concentrations reaching 1,000,000 Bq/m3 can be found in unventilated uranium mines.
55,400,000,000,000,000,000 ~1,500,000,000,000,000,000 Radon gas (222Rn) at 100% concentration (standard conditions: 1 atmosphere, 0° C).

(1,500,000 curies per liter; 1.538×105 curies per gram[1])

  1. ^ Toxicological Profile for Radon, Table 4-2 (Keith S, Doyle JR, Harper C, et al. Toxicological Profile for Radon. Atlanta (GA): Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (US); 2012 May. 4, CHEMICAL, PHYSICAL, AND RADIOLOGICAL INFORMATION.) Retrieved 2015-06-06

I suspect inhaling unadulterated radon gas would kill one pretty quick, but how quick would that be? DWIII (talk) 13:53, 6 June 2015 (UTC) Moving question to the reference desk. DWIII (talk) 07:29, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Go for it. Though you'll need a footnote explaining the derivation. Kolbasz (talk) 16:27, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Finally dug up an actual reference(!), confirming my previous calculations (inserted into the table above for review). Just multiply the cited figure with the density of gaseous 222Rn and voila. Any objections? DWIII (talk) 21:08, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
The reference desk question is now at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2015 June 20#Biological effects of Radon-222 exposure at 100% concentration. Double sharp (talk) 03:13, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

History and Etymology

A non-expert might wonder whether the element was named to honor Johann Radon. The second paragraph in History and Etymology begins, "Several names were suggested for these three gases: ... radon, thoron, and akton in 1918;" Radon was aged about 31 years at that time and apparently there was no connection to him. PeterEasthope (talk) 22:52, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

@PeterEasthope: I agree that it is not explained explicitly enough. The names radon, thoron, and later actinon are from the three radioactive series they appear in: they are shortenings of the original radium emanation, thorium emanation, and actinium emanation listed in the preceding paragraph. I've tried to explain this more clearly by starting the next paragraph with "Several shortened names were soon suggested for the three emanations"; but please do suggest improvements if you think this doesn't clarify things enough. Double sharp (talk) 03:09, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
A footnote might explain that Radon was a young scientist at the time and the match of the spelling of the proposed name to his was an unintentional coincidence. Regards, ... PeterEasthope (talk) 04:52, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
@PeterEasthope: I have added a brief parenthetical note. Going into detail may not be possible since it is very hard to find a citation for a negative (you will easily find sources saying where the name is from, but not those saying where it isn't from). Double sharp (talk) 06:54, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Odd predicament. The sentence added is good. Thanks, ... PeterEasthope (talk) 19:25, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Article has impossible-to-verify claims about low-dose risks, listed EPA citations do not support

Low-dose-exposure risks are inherently difficult or impossible to measure. The EPA's "studies" cited on this article are actually policy guidelines, and as such their main job is to provide sensible policy, not to accurately state scientific conclusions and uncertainties.

For risk-averse policy, EPA's estimates relying on extrapolating high doses to the low-dose regime are sensible; policy makers are risk-averse.

However, it is incredibly inaccurate and misleading to assume such guidelines are supported by physical, peer-reviewed, empirical evidence simply because they show up in an EPA report. Until anyone can provide a non-policy peer-reviewed academic source for any claim about low-dose exposure, assertions that assume EPA's information is fact rather than policy need to be heavily challenged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.84.199.178 (talk) 22:20, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

More on chemistry

Paper on bonding in RnF6. Double sharp (talk) 16:18, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

And some reviews on Rn chemistry: 10.1021/bk-1987-0331.ch018, 10.1070/rc1982v051n01abeh002787 (from 1987 and 1982 respectively; I can't find much recent work on chemistry). The first is cool (Rn as a metalloid! cationic Rn2+ displacing K+ in 1,1,2-trichlorotrifluoroethane solution!). Double sharp (talk) 16:20, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Radioactive

Since it is radioactive shouldn't the article mention its decay path (what it turns into over time and so on)? I do not know chemestry so if you know the answer please tell us, i am interested :). --ShaunMacPherson 18:35, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'll add one. --Fastfission 00:37, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)


The two radon decay products (rdp's)that are capable of significant damage to lung cells are polonium 218 and polonium 214, which like radon, are alpha emitters. The other decay products in the chain are beta and gamma emitters including bismuth and finally becomes lead.

Radon is an inert noble gas which is constantly exhaled and has a relatively long half=life (3.8 days).

The polonium atoms are positively charged solids even if not attached to other particulate matter, so they can become lodged deep within the lungs as well as tissues throughout the respiratory track and have half lives of less than two minutes. The alpha energy from the decay can be devastating to any cell directly impacted. Some radon test devices actually record the pits created by the radioactive decay on specially treated plastic to measure radon levels.

The body has a marvelous ability to fix these little dings just as it protects us from other forms of radiation and environmental hazards. Exposure to elevated levels of radon decay products over a long period of time just increases the risk that the body is not able to repair the damage which can eventually result in a malignacy.

Most radon test results are reported in measurement units referred to as PicoCuries Per Liter (PCi/L).

One PCi/L represents 2.2 radioactive decays per minute per liter of air, so the recommended action level of 4.0 PCi/L would produce approximately 10 radioactive decays per minute per liter of air in that space. We breathe about 20,000 liters of air per day.

The science is true and the risk is real. About 15% of homes nationwide appear to have elevated levels and certain areas of the country do have higher potential than others, but radon levels much higher than 4 Pci/L have been found in many areas historically identified as having low radon potential due to geological abnormalities quite common in nature.

The short-term radon test kits used for screening purposes are inexpensive, in many cases free. Conducting the test is typically a matter of opening the package to place in the lowest lived-in area of the home for 3-7 days. Provide the required information and drop it in the mail. It really doesn't get much easier.

If a radon problem is detected, it can be reduced in almost every situation at a cost comparable to other routine home repairs...$800-$2500 according to EPA.

If short-term results report radon at 4-10 PCi/L, you may want to consider retesting using a long-term test device which provide an actual time integrated result since radon levels do fluctuate and seasonal differences may be significant with tests conducted during the colder months are typically higher than warm weather.

Where can I obtain radon?

I want to collect some radon for my new collection of elements. I live in apartments. Where can I get the purest sample and how dangerous is it to have? Porygon-Z 22:46, 10 October 2018 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Porygon-Z474 (talk • contribs) 22:41, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

You can't get pure Rn, as it will decay on you with a short half-life. But you can seal away some radioactive Th- or U-containing material (granite will do) in a vacuum, and then there will always be some Rn in there produced in secular equilibrium. Double sharp (talk) 02:25, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
OH, so What's the safest pure element I can have? UB Blacephalon (talk) 00:55, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
@Blacephalon: Gold and various other metals. Many of them react with air to form a thin layer of oxidized material, gold is great because it does not (under normal conditions). --mfb (talk) 06:28, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
But isn't it hard to find? Besides, Im interested in heavy elements. UB Blacephalon (talk) 20:34, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Gold is heavy and trivial to buy if you don't want too much. Anyway, this talk page is the wrong place for that. --mfb (talk) 10:39, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Caveating the cancer risk

Not a denier or skeptic but I noticed that the NAS study on which the EPA statements on the cancer risk of radon exposure are based is 20 years old. And there appear to be questions raised about it. The listed article is an example. I'm not saying the wiki article cancer claim needs to go away but things might have reached the point where the claim needs a caution included. Will have to ponder this.

BEIR VI radon: The rest of the story https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0009279718310871

Ploversegg (talk) 21:49, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

So a person could air out a room to lower to radon levels, but keep in mind the solid radioactive daughters are still in the dust. One big problem being a smoker is that the Celia along the bronchial tree are killed off, so the dust tends to get in and stay in the lungs. Ribazole (talk) 07:52, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Emission spectra?

Doesn't it seem strange that the emission spectra of radon and radium almost look the exact same, but with a difference of a few extra lines? I haven't looked into the sources or databases for these spectra, so I don't know how accurate these spectra are. I've noticed some potential red flags regarding accuracy of these emission spectra images: the images were uploaded in 2013, and the author credits this program which mentions "spectrum data for nearly all the elements from Hydrogen to Uranium," which contradicts that author's uploads of transuranic emission spectra up to einsteinium.

I don't have any background knowledge on atomic physics research to say much else, so I'd like to hear your comments. @Double sharp, DePiep, ComplexRational, and Sandbh: Nrco0e (talk) 21:40, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

I haven't checked it against the pictures, but NIST has data: Rn spectral lines, Ra spectral lines. And NIST does indeed have data up to Es. Double sharp (talk) 06:13, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
See {{Infobox element/symbol-to-spectral-lines-image}} for image data central. AFAIK, we have them up to and including Es, and showing in its infobox. This ok then?
I cannot say anything about correctness of Ra, Rd. I'm waiting for any conclusion.
radon 86 Rn Spectra of Rn
radium 88 Ra Spectra of Ra
Some images are missing: Hg, At, Fr. Now added to the (mainspace) table. Should there be a clarifying text?
In general, I think the setup of all these images could be improved: now the full spectrum background is too overwhelming.
-DePiep (talk) 07:18, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Radon/Archive_2&oldid=1245169338"