Talk:Health effects of radon
|Stanley Watras was nominated for deletion. The debate was closed on 05 July 2010 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Health effects of radon. The original page is now a redirect to here. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.|
|WikiProject Chemistry||(Rated B-class, Low-importance)|
Justification for creating this article
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)
copy from radon therapy article
|This page was nominated for deletion on 22 September 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.|
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.
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)
Fringe theories noticeboard
So... What are the health effects?
Accuracy of Radon's contribution to mean public exposure?
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 http://www.unscear.org/docs/reports/2008/09-86753_Report_2008_Annex_A.pdf and https://www.iaea.org/Publications/Booklets/RadPeopleEnv/pdf/chapter_4.pdf 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 http://www.diagnosticimaging.com/articles/ionizing-radiation-exposure-skyrockets-1980s-0 in 2006 shows Radon was down to 37% and medical exposures have increased since then.Cuhlik (talk) 16:17, 6 August 2014 (UTC)