Talk:Health effects of radon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Chemistry (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of chemistry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Justification for creating this article[edit]

Hey, I created this article because the radon article was far too long. All I did was copy the last three sections of the article, plus the lead, rejigger it slightly, and paste it here. I'm going to hold off on actually paring the radon article back until this one appears to be accepted by people. See discussions at Talk:Radon#Article_length, and also at Wikipedia:Peer_review/Radon/archive3 if you would like to know more. ManfromButtonwillow (talk) 08:46, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I see that a request for speedy deletion has been made, and I'm not going to put up much of a fight. I just want to make sure that the administrators know what my reasoning was before they delete it! ManfromButtonwillow (talk) 11:18, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
I've removed the template, as split pages are one of the exclusions from the A10 criterion. snigbrook (talk) 16:30, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Many thanks Snigbrook. I'm going to start looking at the original article now! (talk) 21:30, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

copy from radon therapy article[edit]

I'm not a doctor, and I do not intend to offer any medical advice. I do not intend to get into medical discussions and debates. The fact is that radon therapy is used all over the world. This article simply states the facts that radon therapy is used here, there, and over there. Neutrality of this article can not be disputed, except by those who work for Big Pharma, selling pharmaceutical drugs for arthritis.

--Mikevilkin (talk) 03:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

The word "noble" used repeatedly in the article, means "chemically inert" and does not imply goodness or healing qualities, therefore it is irrelevant, but well-chosen to create a favorable impression.

This article makes no attempt to explain WHY radon might help any illness. A journey to Lourdes MIGHT be beneficial. Placebos have often been shown to have beneficial effects as well.

The article also mentioned that visitors to radon mines are able to "bask" in the radiation, much as one might "bask" in the sun. This is a favorable way to present the idea of venturing underground to expose oneself to radiation.

As far as "arriving in a wheelchair and walking out on one's own" is concerned, I will be happy to obtain a wheelchair and provide a convincing demonstration of how this can occur for anyone who is interested.

A few other comments:

1. Once a mine has been completely exploited, nothing is left but a (probably radioactive) and worthless hole in the ground. Charging sick people to enter it and stay for a while creates a lucrative source of income. Over time a body of testimonials and evidence can be developed. This can be referred to as "evidence-based effective treatment" without any further explanation of its effectiveness.

2. During the 19th century, petroleum oil was sold for its curative properties - it was nothing but petroleum that seeped out of the ground and was bottled for drinking.

3. The pdf article from Doctor Becker also offers no explanation for the reported therapeutic effects of radiation. It simply cites the history and related literature of such treatments, as if this justifies the means.Skydog69 (talk) 09:41, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Skydog69 (talkcontribs) 09:28, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Fringe theories noticeboard[edit]

I'd like to record that I've placed a link to this page on the fringe theories noticeboard. --Thinboy00 @218, i.e. 04:13, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

So... What are the health effects?[edit]

I read this article and only thing I could see was some lung cancer. Nothing else? No headaches or something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:31, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Accuracy of Radon's contribution to mean public exposure?[edit]

This statement "Radon is responsible for the majority of the mean public exposure to ionizing radiation." can't be right since about half of mean public exposure to ionizing radiation in the USA is from medical diagnostics and treatment. That leaves less than half for *all* natural sources of which Radon is only a part. See and which puts Radon at 43% of global average. The USA has a much higher medical exposure rate, so Radon's contribution is correspondingly less. This study in 2006 shows Radon was down to 37% and medical exposures have increased since then.Cuhlik (talk) 16:17, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

As you noted, the US is an outlier. Unless specified otherwise, an article should represent a worldwide view of the subject. Kolbasz (talk) 08:35, 12 January 2015 (UTC)