Tag Archives: inspection

Radon Gas Testing in Dallas / Fort Worth and Texas: More Critical For Home Safety Than You Think

Radon Gas Home Inspections in Dallas Texas    Radon Gas A Home Danger in Dallas

20,000+ Lung Cancer Deaths Annually in the United States

I had another radon gas inspection job in Garland recently and a remark by one of the interested parties got me to thinking. This was relayed by a third party, but I believe the statement was something along the lines of: “Texas homes do not have a radon problem” which I know to be patently false as I have found homes that tested beyond the EPA action limit of 4 picoCuries/liter including MINE. (I have measured 4.9 – 8.0 pCi/L in the Lake Highlands area which is equal to a pack of cigarettes a day) I have also personally been to several residences that had radon mitigation systems in place, and when they were turned off, the levels went back into the danger zone.

So how do myths and misinformation like this get perpetuated? Radon is a more common issue in other parts of the United States and tends to be more detectable in homes with basements, (as radon is heavier than air) but it is common enough in the North Texas region to be worth checking as a part of indoor air quality testing in Dallas and Fort Worth.

The number of homes in the Dallas, Tarrant, Collin and Denton counties exceed the EPA action limit 5 – 10 % of the time which IS statistically significant; up to 1 out of 10 homes. Furthermore if you add in the number of homes which are marginal (2.0 – 3.9 picoCuries/Liter) as radon gas concentrations vary throughout the day, year, etc. then the number of potentially affected homes in North Texas is closer to 16 – 24 %.

Also, the World Health Organization (WHO) recommends a lower limit than the EPA with the mitigation safety limit set at 2.7 pCi/L versus the higher limit of 4.0 pCi/L by the Environmental Protection Agency. And there is NO SAFE LIMIT of radon gas, any amount is bad, but you can’t get away from it entirely as even outdoor levels are typically 0.3 pCi/L and average indoor is 1.1 – 1.3 pCi/L.

So how dangerous is radon gas? Here is a quick risk comparison by the EPA:

Radon Gas Risk Statistics

Radon Gas Risk Statistics

This graph shows only 15,000 deaths annually, (the lower number is because the stats are derived from 1986 data quoted by Environmental Science Technology Vol 24 pp. 774 – 1990)  but a more recent EPA report (2014) shows closer to an estimated 20,000+ lung cancer deaths annually due to radon – 2nd only to smoking in direct cause – which is actually higher than the fatalities caused by drunk driving in which a great deal of energy has been focused on in recent years.

The problem with radon gas is that it is invisible, silent, and much harder to track than the erratic, weaving driving patterns of an inebriated driver. Couple this with a mythologies like: “Texas homes don’t have radon” or “You need to have a basement for radon to be an issue” and this becomes a significantly overlooked risk and safety factor that is relatively easy to test for and not necessarily that expensive to correct.

How does radon gas do it’s damage? By the emission of inhaled alpha particles that get into the lungs and whose ionizing radiation damages cell DNA. This mechanism works by attacking DNA molecules within the cells to form free radical ions, or changes the molecules themselves into excited molecules that can form biochemical pathways to cancer.

Radon Gas Inhaled Lung Damage Alpha Radiation

Radon Lung Damage Alpha Radiation

So even if your home has no basement (very few residences in Texas do) then why be concerned? Because the gas can still seep in through cracks in the foundation or gaps in a pier and beam construction. (you don’t need a basement to have a radon issue)

Radon Gas Home Inspection in Dallas / Ft. Worth to find potentially unsafe levels of radioactivity due to these various sources of entry

Radon Gas Home Inspection in Dallas / Ft. Worth to find potentially unsafe levels of radioactivity due to these various sources of entry

The solution is to first retest to make sure that the radon levels are consistently high enough to warrant attention and if so, proper ventilation is designed and installed by a professional radon mitigator, and then the residence retested to make sure that the system is working. Incidentally, ScanTech does no mitigation as we consider it a potential conflict of interest.

But for a prospective homeowner who is interested in a property, it is important to get the radon checked as soon as possible once you are inside the option period. The reason why is because of the time delays in deploying the kits, waiting the 48 – 96 hours for the kits to develop, transit time to the lab and the radon lab processing / reporting time. This means a dead minimum of 4 days under IDEAL circumstances with rush fees and hand trucking the kits in to the lab. Otherwise, it can take up to over a week which can easily exceed the standard 10 day option period.

ScanTech does have the ability to check the radon levels with a special digital tester that can get results much more quickly (in as little as 1 – 2 days after deployment) with the same level of accuracy as the activated charcoal radon test kits described above and it is less expensive when comparing a return trip to retrieve the device and interpret the results versus a return trip for the charcoal kits.

The charcoal kit route is more feasible if the testing is not as time sensitive and/or the client is willing to either mail or hand carry the kits into the radon testing lab itself located in Dallas County.

SCANTECH EMF CONSULTING  214.912.4691

RADON FAQ PAGE for Dallas / Fort Worth & Surrounding Counties

http://radontestingdallas.com/

http://www.indoorairqualitytestingdallas.com/

EMF Power Lines & Safe Distance for Protection – What is Wrong with this Picture?

Mark Twain once commented:

“Figures often beguile me,” he wrote, “particularly when I have the arranging of them myself; in which case the remark attributed to Disraeli would often apply with justice and force: ‘There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.”

So what is beguiling about this figure?

safe-living-distance-to-power-lines

Deceptive depiction of EMF fields from high voltage powerlines.

It gives greatly oversimplified answers to alleged effects based on solely on DISTANCE instead of actual ELECTRIC OR MAGNETIC FIELD STRENGTH. It is understandable that most clients and residential home owners want a simple formula or guideline to the question “How far or what distance from high voltage power lines is safe, or within safety levels for my family and I?”

Unfortunately, the answer isn’t that simple for the following reasons.

Because of the poor coupling between electric fields and the human body, even strong external AC electric fields have a vanishingly small effect on the voltages induced in the body compared to the bio-electric energies already present in the heart, brain and nervous system. Magnetic fields have a stronger potential for affecting the human organism, but the only parameter mentioned is the 765 kilo-volts present on the line which pertains to the electric field, not the magnetic component which would relate to current measured in amps.

There is also a fine nuance in the graphic itself that most people not familiar with electromagnetic theory would miss. The field is shown as radiating out from three different points on the tower in concentric circles. This is indicative of a magnetic field, not an electric field. The electric field comes straight out of the wire and that is based on voltage which is the only metric given. So the implication is that the main parameter for an electric field is given, but a magnetic field illustration is given by mistake instead.

Notice that certain critical information is lacking. There is no mention of any parameters that actually govern magnetic fields such as amperage, phasing or physical specifications of the tower. Furthermore, in my experience of measuring high voltage towers, I have never seen one that could influence ambient fields (EMFs) out to 2 kilometers (over a mile) with any conventional AC gaussmeter or electric field meter.

And with regard to the safety levels, what does the term “stunted growth” mean or apply to? Is it based on studies of children or even human beings? How is the term “stunted” even quantified? Is it 1%, 10% or 34.25%? Do certain effects such as abnormal EEGs actually begin (or end) at exactly 507 meters? This figure is presented without any form of context, explanation, references or other supporting data and very little clarity. This sort of anti-information only serves to distort known physical laws into a neat and convenient visual bite that gives the reader a false sense of knowledge.

The only concept the diagram illustrates to any degree is the idea that electromagnetic fields “fall off” or diminish with increasing distance, though it does that rather badly by not explicitly stating it. But notice what is so compelling about the graphic; it is attractive, neat and gives a tabulated numbers versus certain biological effects causality that urges a viewer to adopt it as accepted fact without argument.

To re-invoke the perennial wisdom of Twain:

It ain’t so much what we know that gets us into trouble. It’s what we know that just ain’t so.

Then this sort of pseudo-scientific mythology gets incorporated into the bylaws of how EMF works (such as proliferating on the Internet) and only dilutes the cause of actual knowledge by displacing it with misdirected garbage which is worse than useless.

I have sat in on numerous high level PhD thesis defenses and if the presenter had used a slide like this, I guarantee they would be discredited on the spot for the aforementioned reasons. But without peer review or challenge, there are some who think they can become an authority on a complex subject merely by skimming some articles found online.

A phrase found in Nature (one of the most highly respected scientific journals known) in 1885, page 74 Nov 26, 1885 exemplifies this phenomena:

“A well-known lawyer, now a judge, once grouped witnesses into three classes: simple liars, damned liars, and experts.

More information can be found here:  http://scantech7.com/EMF_Survey_FAQ.htm

Smart Meters: Home Safety with regard to Actual RF Testing

Smart Meter, RF, Safety

Model GE I-210 Smart Meter

The controversy of Smart Meters is getting so prevalent that I feel a compulsion to share some of my data with respect to certain claims and fears that the public has about this deployed technology. There are a number of website and organizations dedicated to banning this device for various reasons. Some of them deal with potential privacy invasion issues or the theory that the power company can somehow selectively turn off certain appliances without your permission.

While I cannot comment on the political or civil liberties aspects of the Smart Meter debate, I have now done enough measurements to get an idea of just how much energy these devices are putting out and probable public exposure.

The short answer is: not that much.

Now before you think that I am on the side of the utility or power companies, I actually have some criticism of at least one power company’s portrayal of how low the levels from Smart Meters are:

Smart Meter RF Safety Homes

Smart Meter RF Comparison Chart (BTW, I do NOT entirely agree with this)

For one, I cannot believe that a Smart Meter puts out less RF than what emanates from a human body (I have no idea where they are getting that notion from – even brainwaves are severely attenuated outside of the body which is why electrodes are needed for EEGs) or the earth itself – at least not at point blank range.

And this brings up another hidden factor – at what distance from the source are these measurements taken? Because radiated power from an ideal isotropic antenna falls of with the square of the distance, if you even move the measurement meter a few feet from an RF source, the power levels drop dramatically.

Also, they are using milliWatts per cm^squared instead of the more typical microWatts/cm^2 (or uW/cm^2) which is more routine for measuring low level RF at a moderate distance. I suspect the reason why is because in using the milliWatts convention (in which 1 milliWatt or mW is = 1000 microWatts) you get to put all of those zeros after the decimal place and make the numbers seem even smaller.

There are specific reasons why I have chosen to point these specific concerns out besides just being picky – they also inform the reader to pay attention to the context in which this data is presented.

I just got done measuring my Smart Meter and at a distance of 3 feet which is as close as anyone would even causally walk past it, I only get a maximum of 1.5 uW/cm^2. That only occurs in a very short burst (less than one second) every minute or so, so the actual exposure averaged over time would be far less. (closer to the nanoWatt range) Please note that such an intermittent burst is NOT the same as the pulsed signals that you read about as being harmful. Those are frequencies are continuously pulsed in at least the MHz or GHz range – what I am talking about is more like a substantial fraction of Hertz or 0.016 Hz if it is one second out of every 60.

My cell phone when running at full power puts out over 2 uW/cm^2 and it is right next to my head when making a call. While the frequencies involved are somewhat different, the RF dosage is roughly comparable except that the cell phone is consistently much closer to my body for more extended periods of time. I doubt I spend more than 30 minutes a week being within 10 feet of my Smart Meter.

What non-technical critics also fail to realize is that the metal backing of the case on the Smart Meter which is in between the RF and the occupants inside the home is grounded and right next to the point source – therefore shielding much of what is already fairly low level RF.

Also what many people seem to forget is that the Smart Meter mounting locations are at the main power feed or drop into the home where the magnetic field tends to be the strongest. Therefore as a very respected EMF consultant pointed out recently, it is not the RF from the Smart Meter that should be such a concern, but the elevated magnetic fields that you get in the vicinity of any major power feed into the home.

But the bottom line is that if someone is convinced that a Smart Meter installation at their home is a threat to their health or the well-being of their family, then there is no sense in arguing the point.

Why?

My primary role is not to change someone’s mind, but to help them find peace of mind with a set of feasible solutions. Have you ever had something that seemed small, like a cupboard door that doesn’t hang quite right, or an argument with a coworker that just stuck with you all the rest of the day? We are unsettled because of the feelings of things not being symmetrical or completely in our control and regardless of the actual relevance or meaning, it causes stress and stress is definitely a factor in disease, accidents and our enjoyment of life.

So for legal Smart Meter mitigation, what I CAN recommend is a particular form of shielding that is currently approved by the local utility here in Dallas, Texas (ONCOR) that can be placed over your meter. By my measurements it reduces the RF by at least 95 % and I know someone who has at this writing has ONCOR’s express permission to install them. (installing one yourself can get you into trouble with the utility company if you remove the locktag to access the backside of the meter)

Please contact me at www.scantech7.com for details if you are interested.

BTW, trying to make one yourself such as a solid Faraday cage will probably block the data signal and also get you into trouble with the electrical company. The price of one installed by this particular gentlemen compares very favorably with other units sold on the Internet. Furthermore, it is rugged and designed to be vandal resistant so even if RF protection is not of interest, it may be a good investment for commercial customers looking to reduce the costs of malicious destruction.

SCANTECH EMF CONSULTING  214.912.4691