Replies

1. 
   CloudHidden | Apr 18, 2006 05:40pm | #1

   Just observed a radon abatement on a house. It was tested when purchased and was over some standard, and so the owners needed to instal a radon mitigation system. The installer used 4" pvc pipe, cut a hole into a corner of the foundation (slab on grade, though all elevated about 12", so access under the slab was easy), then the pipe takes a 90 to go vertical, the inline fan is set in, then the tube continues up another 15' or so and has another 90 to keep rain out. After installation, another test was done and the numbers were within the range. Only problem encountered was that the fan noise, and the sound of the air turbulence at the pipe inlet, was too loud, and so the fan was replaced with a smaller version. Less air flow, but still within tolerances. Was told $1700 or so.

   Like so many other things, I'm sure that it can be diy, but I don't know what elements would be overlooked by a diy that would be completely obvious to a pro.

2. 
   andy_engel | Apr 18, 2006 05:54pm | #2

   In my experience with relatively low readings, I'd do it myself, and retest when done. I wouldn't consider hiring a pro. That said, I don't hire pros for much.

   Andy

   "Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig." Robert A. Heinlein

   "Get off your dead #### and on your dying feet." Mom

1. 
   CloudHidden | Apr 18, 2006 06:14pm | #3

   One consideration would be if he's doing it for himself or for resale. It's a frequent part of sales contracts now, and if a certain threshold is not met, then the buyer can compel the seller to have a system installed and warranted by a professional company as a condition of the sale. So if a diy solution is undertaken, make sure it achieves the necessary results (< 4 pCi/l from what I was told...picocuries per liter).

1. 
   andy_engel | Apr 18, 2006 09:04pm | #4

   Exactly so. When I worked in NJ, as the builder I could install a passive system from the ground up. That probably took an hour, and cost about $50 in material. If that didn't get the levels down to under 4, it was illegal for me to go into the attic, cut the pipe, and install a $130 inline fan. I had to pay $300 for a licensed yahoo to do so, back ten years ago. Of course, that's the simplest of situations.

   I don't know if current research has changed my decade old knowledge of radon, but back then, there was no direct science proving that 4 pc/liter was a safe or unsafe level. The EPA arrived at that number by extrapolating numbers from coal mines, where the levels could run in the thousands of pc/liter. No one actually had epidemialogical data for lower numbers. Andy

   "Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig." Robert A. Heinlein

   "Get off your dead #### and on your dying feet." Mom

1. 
   TJK | Apr 26, 2006 03:00am | #16

   "I don't know if current research has changed my decade old knowledge of radon, but back then, there was no direct science proving that 4 pc/liter was a safe or unsafe level. The EPA arrived at that number by extrapolating numbers from coal mines, where the levels could run in the thousands of pc/liter. No one actually had epidemialogical data for lower numbers."Dr. Geno Saccomonno did research on Radon and lung cancer in the 1960s and his work showed no significant increase in risk for non-smokers when Radon levels were below 20 pC/l.There still isn't any scientific rationale for the 4pC/l number the EPA uses. It's like the 2500 mg RDA for sodium in nutrition tables -- the government just pulled it out of their rear end and made it law.

1. 
   GaryGary | Apr 26, 2006 03:32am | #17

   Hi,The guy I bought my home from who had lived in it for 5 years and was the builder felt the same way, and refused to do anything about the high Radon levels. But, the EPA (it seems to me) makes a pretty good case for it being a good idea to reduce Radon levels. Based on what they say, one might argue whether 4 pcl is really low enough. I used to design airplanes for a living, and there were many times when you could not "prove" that the risk you were designing for would ever happen, but we designed for those risks anyway -- I think the public prefers it that way? Seems to me its the same for Radon?EPA -- health risks from Radon:
   http://www.epa.gov/radon/pubs/physic.html#HealthRiskA couple excerpts:
   Basis for the 4 pCi/L Radon "Action Level"
   No radon level is considered "safe". The risk of developing lung cancer is directly proportional to the levels and duration of exposure to radon: the higher the radon concentration, the higher the lung cancer risk. The 4 pCi/L "Action Level" is based on current mitigation technology. Today, mitigation technology can almost always reduce high radon concentration levels to below 4 pCi/l and to 2 pCi/L or below 70-80 percent of the time. The average radon level in homes is about 1.25 pCi/L. Although Congress passed legislation in 1988 establishing a national goal that indoor radon levels not exceed ambient outdoor radon levels (0.2-0.7 pCi/L), this goal is not yet technologically achievable....EPA has adjusted its residential risk estimates accordingly. The result is still considerable--EPA now estimates that approximately 14,000 lung cancer deaths in the United States per year are due to residential radon exposures, with an uncertainty range of 7,000 to 30,000. As more data are gathered about residential radon exposures, the risk estimates may be adjusted further. Enough data exists now, however, to be able to say with certainty that thousands of preventable lung cancer deaths annually in the United States are attributable to indoor residential exposure to radon.Gary

2. 
   TJK | Apr 26, 2006 04:09am | #19

   There are many studies that dispute the claim "No radon level is considered "safe". The risk of developing lung cancer is directly proportional to the levels and duration of exposure to radon: the higher the radon concentration, the higher the lung cancer risk."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hormesishttp://www.angelfire.com/mo/radioadaptive/inthorm.htmlOther research shows similar effects with a variety of toxic substances, and the hormesis effect is now grudgingly accepted by most biologists. Reducing exposure to these substances below certain levels actually increases mortality rates. The quest by the EPA and others to "save" us might actually put more people at risk!

3. 
   basswood | Apr 26, 2006 06:20am | #20

   The EPA has a need for funding, which is the real reason for their distribution of Radon misinformation.Radon is scary enough, to enough people, to help justify a bunch of funding from the taxpaying public.Radon levels found in the indoor air of Cornwall, England, for example, are 100 times the average exposure in the British Isles, but the incidence of lung cancer shows no elevation. There are similar examples documented in Pennsylvania & Colorado, USA, Finland. etc.When considering the link between Radon and lung cancer, some studies (ignored by the EPA), show a negative correlation for exposure to low levels of Radon--in other words, below a certain threshold, more Radon means less lung cancer. Check with Professor B.L. Cohen (University of Pittsburgh).This was pointed out to me by my boss at a Radiochemistry lab. His business benefited from the EPA hype, but he still refuted them on principle. I hung out with radiation heath physicists who where all embarassed by our governments politicizing of science.

4. 
   andy_engel | Apr 26, 2006 03:34am | #18

   There still isn't any scientific rationale for the 4pC/l number the EPA uses. It's like the 2500 mg RDA for sodium in nutrition tables -- the government just pulled it out of their rear end and made it law.

   Have I mentioned lately just how much I hate politics? Andy

   "Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig." Robert A. Heinlein

   "Get off your dead #### and on your dying feet." Mom

3. 
   DanH | Apr 19, 2006 12:02am | #5

   There are a dozen different ways to do it, and dozens of rules and regs that may or may not apply where you're located. In some locations it's considered plumbing and may only be done (in daylight, at least) by a licensed plumber, eg.

   But in general there are three basic approaches:

   1) Use some sort of ventillation scheme (eg, air-to-air heat exchanger) to get rid of radon that has already infiltrated.

   2) Seal the structure to prevent radon infiltration.

   3) Somehow intercept the radon gas before it infiltrates into the structure.

   #1 is the same basic idea as used for "tight" homes to eliminate "bad air".

   #2 is conceptually similar to sealing a foundation to prevent water infiltration and is about as (in)effective. However, there are probably techniques involving a membrane inside the foundation that could be used, unlike with water sealing.

   #3 is generally done relative to the foundation. Some sort of scheme is employed to either passively let radon escape or actively "suck" it out. This is conceptually similar to tiling around a foundation to prevent water infiltration, and in fact often the same tile system can be used for both purposes. In other cases holes are drilled in the floor and subsurface walls of the lower level and a hose system installed to suck the radon out.

   The simplest approach is to install drain tile leading to a sump and then seal the sump (special covers are available for this) and either passively or actively vent the sump to the out-of-doors. This is often easy to retrofit if the structure already had drain tile and a sump.

   Of course, in severe cases several different techniques may be required.

   Your state department of health may (or may not) have some good info on DIY radon abatement. Also check whatever state department is responsible for encouraging weatherizing, since often the two go together.

   If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. --James Madison
4. 
   GaryGary | Apr 24, 2006 05:40am | #6

   Hi,

   We had Radon readings in the 6 ish range in our basement.
   I broke a hole in the basement slab with a rented electric hammer, cleaned out a small cavity under the slab, ran PVC pipe from the hold I cut in the slap up to the attic, installed an inline radon fan on the PVC, and then vented the fan outlet using PVC pipe through the roof (like a plumbing vent).
   The area where the PVC pipe penetrated the slab was sealed back up with patching concrete -- I think this is probably important, so that the Radon fan can pull a little negative pressure under the slab.
   The Radon readins dropped to well below 1.
   The pipe is apparently able to pull gas from under the whole slab without having to have feeder pipes under the slab (at least in my case).
   Total cost (including fan) was less than $300, and it took one full day of my (unskilled) time.

   Hope that helps.

   Gary
   http://www.BuildItSolar.com

1. 
   MarkH | Apr 24, 2006 02:11pm | #7

   I saw a DIY show where a pro came in and installed a system.  After they were done with the install, they tested it by drilling small test holes in the slab and smoke tested the holes.  All were pulling a vacuum.  If the slab was not negative pressure, they would have to install another inlet to the fan in that area.

2. 
   KaiserRoo | Apr 24, 2006 10:00pm | #8

   Thanks to all for the information. Gary do you have some type of gauge on the pipe that reads the pressure? Where did you get the inline fan?

   Thanks again, KaiserRoo

   PS what did you use for your test? I got my kit from Home depot, and just sent the samples to the lab in New Jersey. I'm not sure if that is the same way a radon removal contractor would test it, but we'll see how bad it is when I get the results. 

1. 
   andy_engel | Apr 25, 2006 12:10am | #9

   One bit of information that's critical is to place the inline fan in the attic. That way, the pipe through living space is under a negative pressure. If there's a leak, air is sucked in and the system doesn't work as well. Put the fan in the basement, and a leaky pipe means you have a radon pump.Andy

   "Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig." Robert A. Heinlein

   "Get off your dead #### and on your dying feet." Mom

1. 
   DanH | Apr 25, 2006 03:13am | #10

   Yeah, but think of the money you can save on lighting if you glow in the dark.
   If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. --James Madison

2. 
   KaiserRoo | Apr 25, 2006 03:50am | #11

   Very good point, thanks for the added information.

   Patrick 

2. 
   GaryGary | Apr 25, 2006 06:28am | #15

   Hi,
   I did not put the little pressure gage in -- maybe should have. The same outfit that sold the fan had them. From outside the house, I can just barely hear the fan running if its quiet -- so I just listen once in a while to make sure its still running. This is not as good as the pressure gage thou, which tells you if its actually pulling some pressure.I can't remember where we got the fan, but if you google for "radon supplies" or "radon fans" you get some. I actually picked the lowest power one they had (30 or 40 watts?). Since it runs all the time, this is something to think about.The Radon kit we used was just off the local ACE hardware shelf. I think the ones that run multiple months are more reliable and accurate than the short term ones.Gary
   http://www.BuildItSolar.com

5. 
   VaGentinMI | Apr 25, 2006 04:56am | #12

   almost anything is DIY..."given the right information and tools", probably even brain surgery, but u sure u want to do that?

    

1. 
   DanH | Apr 25, 2006 06:00am | #14

   In most cases the radon "problem" is marginal, and so there's no real danger in trying a DIY fix. Worst case it won't work and a pro will need to be called in.
   If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. --James Madison

6. 
   constantin | Apr 25, 2006 05:15am | #13

   Yes and no...

   I'm a mere homeowner and helped install the Radon system here. We designed the basement to have interior and exterior strip footings. Thus, I designed them to have pipes in the right places to act as sleeves for the radon and drain piping.

   Poured the footings, came out great. Added 12" of gravel with the drain pipe (4" perf PVC) in every sector below the slab. I figured that the 12" of gravel would allow plenty of gas to wander into the perf pipe. Then ran a schedule 40 all the way into the attic and capped it.

   If a system was required, I would have tried a passive approach first, followed by an active one.

   In the meantime, we used a concrete sealer on the slab (which also had a sealed PE vapor barrier under it), then tested. Came out at 1.4 and 1.6, a bit of an improvement over the contents of the pipe itself, which was 240picocuries (i.e. 60x over limit). The HRVs probably help a bit.

   Eventually capped the pipe in the basement because the building inspector was worried someone might attach a drain to the marked PVC drain piping and drain into the foundation. Apparently, there is approved "Radon" piping that is black with yellow lettering or somesuch. Ask at inspectional services what they want you to use!

   In short, I'd always install a passive system in Radon-prone areas because the marginal cost is so low.

7. 
   regreaves | Apr 28, 2006 05:16pm | #21

   There's lots of DIY sites, including one that sells a book. Try a google search or doityourselfradon.com, radonamerica.com

   I got my numbers down by spraying the slab with a high-dollar juice called Radonloc.

8. 
   Ken | May 01, 2006 04:03am | #22

   http://www.infiltec.com/

   Good book available, plus guages, fans, and other accessories.

   ++++++++++++++++++

   The average pilot, despite the somewhat swaggering exterior, is very much capable of such feelings as love, affection, intimacy, and caring.

   These feelings just don't involve anyone else.

1. 
   KaiserRoo | May 02, 2006 07:08pm | #23

   Thanks again to all for the information in this thread. I'm currewntly waiting for my results.

   KaiserRoo