Is radon a real health risk?
610242
Yes, Radon is a health risk. It's colorless and odorless, but it's potentially deadly. Radon is one of the leading causes of lung cancer in the US; second only to cigarette smoke. But it doesn't only cause long cancer. It can also cause rashes, headaches, GI problems, aching joints, fatigue, and mucous build-up.
43586
Recent theory that pilots and other airline personnel who have spent 20 000 hours in the air are at increased risk of radiation. The incidence of leukaemias amongst those with 20 or more years of flying is five times higher than in the population at large.
342688
In a word, NO.  Now, in a much longer paragraph... :-)  After many years of study, there's not any conclusive evidence that exposure to WiFi (RF frequencies) has any effect whatsoever on living things and there are generally no health concerns, even if you placed your access point under your pillow.  RF exposure involves frequency, power and the duration of the exposure.  The human body most efficiently absorbs radio frequencies in the 30 to 300MHz range, and WiFi is at 2.4GHz.  So not only is the frequency much different, but WiFi products have strict power and RF emmissions requirements, such as 100 milliwatts maximum output power.  Plus, the WiFi RF energy is not "ionizing radiation" like it is UV light and Xrays, so WiFi frequencies pose no danger to human DNA the way prolonged sunlight UV rays cause skin cancers... What is actually of more concern is the RF energy from nearby FM radio stations!  (But they've been around much longer than WiFi, studied extensively, and again, nothing conclusive about any health concerns.)
404456
Very high. However you can reduce that risk with a sensible diet and keeping yourself at a healthy weight. Avoid smoking. And drink only moderate alcohol. All of those things will reduce your risk. Also you might want to have regualr tests with your doctor.
768486
Keep in mind, I'm not a nuclear Engineer or a nuclear specialist.  I haven't studied nuclear physics since college 10 years ago.\n\nRadiation in any form is dangerous.  It is just whether the benfits outweigh the potential ill side effects.\n\nRadiation is actually caused by the decay of a radiactive subtance.  Radiation takes three forms, alpha, beta, and gamma radiation.\n\nAlpha radiation consists of 2 protons and 2 neutrons.  Alpha particles are slow and can not penetrate much.  This type of radiation can be stopped by something as thin as a sheet of paper or clothing.\n\nBeta radiation is actually an electron.  While beta radiation penetrates more than alpha radiation, it is still weak.  It can be stopped by thin metals, such as a sheet of foil.\nGamma radiation is the radiation that is very deadly.  Gamma radiation is actually a wave and not a particle.  It can only be stopped by thick layers of dirt, concrete, or lead.\n\nDuring nuclear fallout, a person doesn’t become radioactive per se.  What happens is the dust and particles collected on their clothing emits radiation.  You may have heard of radiation suits.  Radiation suits do not stop radiation, rather their purpose is to prevent radioactive particles from becoming embedded in hair, skin, or clothing.  Once the person gets away from the contaminated area, they wash the suit, disrobe, and (my guess) run like hell.\n\nRadiation sickness is caused by an overdose of radiation.  The danger of radiation is that it kills the cells of any living thing that it strikes.  This can be beneficial in a medical setting like when a radiation beam is used to kill cancer cells in a patient.  However, when a person is exposed to uncontrolled radiation over a prolonged period of time, many of the cells in their body are killed.  Just like anything else, dead things begin to decay and rot.  Radiation sickness is essentially the body becoming poisoned and weak from the loss of cells and decaying cells in their body.\n\nWithout adequate protection during radiation fallout, radioactive particles become ingested, inhaled, and embedded on the skin.  \n\nI hope this helps a little
9312
-All natural radiation is a level low enough to be safe.\n\nThis statement is bollocks. Natural radiation e.g. by Radon emitted from pitchblende will harm your body cells just as much as radiactives produced by human activities.\n\nEven sunlight (also "natural radiation") can be harmful...
367200
Increased risk of cancer\nrisk of giving birth to children with disabilities or deformations.
753167
There are no risks associated with passive smoking that are scientifically verifiable. \n\nConsider the 2 largest studies ever: \n\nthe WHO announced with much fanfare that those who were subjected to passive smoking ran a 16 to 17% greater chance of contracting lung cancer. What they failed to mention is that the chances of a non-smoker contracting lung cancer is only 0.01%, meaning the increased risk equates to only 0.0017%, which in statistical terms is zero. \n\nThe other large study was conducted with a sample of over 35,000 non-smoking spouses of smokers, by scientists from the Universities of Califonia and New York. They found that there was no statistical evidence ot suggest these non-smokers (in a study which ran from 1959 to 1998) suffered greater mortality rates than non-smokers generally from either coronary heart disease or lung cancer at any time or any level of exposure.\n\nI suspect this won't be the most popular answer, because so many people are health facists. That of course is the problem: lots of people with little tolerance and a big axe to grind, overlooking scientific study because they prefer instead to mis-interpret statistics and ban things they don't like themselves.\n\nMe? I'm a militant smoker.\n\nIn response to later answers, the idea that something should be banned because you don't like it is nonsense. I may not like your after shave or perfume, but I'm not recommending that people who wear either should be forced to sit outside. And I note that, rather than picking on the largest study, which showed no link between coronary heart disease or lung cancer rates and passive smoking, you've picked on the 0.0017% chance in the WHO report to justify your argument. Statistically speaking, 0.0017% is the equivalent of 0, and, given that the margin of error was several orders of magnitude greater than the ten thousandths of a percent being measured, one could as easily argue that it shows a positive effect. No serious statician would even include such a result, and especially not trumpeting the 16-17% increased risk, unless there was a political (or at least politically correct) motivation. \n\nWhile the death of Roy Castle was very sad in an abstract sort of way (lots of people die every day, and I don't know them either, so what do I care?) even the British Medical Association, that well known defender of smokers rights (!) only claim that about 800 people a year die of passive smoking - the most alarmist claim made. To put this into perspective, there were 1,650 deaths related to falls, 3,508 road traffic deaths and 3,946 deaths related to accidents in the home. Thus in order for your argument to be logically consistent and concerned with saving lives rather than banning things you simply don't like, you should first focus on banning cars, houses, and anything which allows people to raise themselves more than 6 inches off the floor. \n\nMore details on the study:\n\nIn May 2003, the British Medical Journal carried the results of research conducted by James Enstrom of the University of California, which monitored the non-smoking partners of 35,561 smoking spouses over a period of 30 years from 1959 to 1998. The study found that exposure to ETS was not significantly associated with death from coronary heart disease or lung cancer at any time, or at any level of exposure.\n\nOther quoted figures:\nRoad Traffic deaths 2003 from government figures published August 2004\nAccidental deaths – ONS Statistics for accidental deaths - 1998\n\nAnd as predicted, the number of - ratings for my answer is high, proving that an age is called dark not because there is no light, but because people refuse to see it.
189576
There are no (absolutely no) health risks involved with either one. That whole cancer scare was started by a guy whose wife died of brain cancer, and he blamed it on her cell phone. But people who eat carrots also die of brain cancer. And people who drive cars. And people who eat breakfast...  But you can't place blame on just anything. Your phone is safe, and independent research (i.e., by people who have no axe to grind) have shown no correlation.
881901
Have a look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathode_ray_tube Scroll down to the Health Danger section.
854963
Check out this website it will tell you all you would ever want to know about radon and any other element.\n\nhttp://www.lenntech.com/Periodic-chart-elements/Rn-en.htm
1044707
Actually, its more related to economy and style.  Concrete has that radon feel about it.
720461
That's a very low risk, I would say (cutting out the cigars would help) but a lot of this is genetic - some people drink and smoke all their lives and never get cancer and some people eat organic food, never drink, never smoke and get cancer.  It's the way it is.  However, you'll be less likely to get cancer if you live a healthy lifestyle.
760442
It's a lie, it's like cell phones causing gas stations to blow up. I work for a package delievery service and we ship optic mice, cell phones and what not all the time, and if something edmits radioactivity it's required to be labeled, even if it doesn't emit the radiation when it's turned off. the only thing you have in ur home that is slightly radioactive is ur smoke detectors.which are class 1, meaning as long as u dont eat them you'll be fine
628614
No. It is extremely unhealthy and very risky to your well being.
1171717
Try going here:\n\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radon#Applications
308719
Without a lot of information on Radon, I would say that you should stay as long as necessary to get a new place or get the Radon "taken care of."  It's not necessarily possible to just up and leave.  You may have a lease agreement, but you can look into breaking it if you have found that the renter new of it and didn't disclaim the information before hand.