This and the sibling comment boggle my mind. Around here, it seems like requesting a radon test is standard when looking at buying a house. Installing radon mitigation is likewise relatively straight forward.
Are basements less common out there? Maybe it's just because we tend to have basements that are made into livable space, where the risk of exposure is higher.
>Average radon levels in Australian homes are only a little larger than the radon levels in outside air and are of minimal concern to the health.
>The average concentration of radon in Australian homes is about 10 Bq m³. This is less than in many other countries and compares to a global average indoor value of 40 Bq m³.
I checked a Radon map and my area is only 5-10Bqm3.
Naturally, Americans do things the hard way and measure radon in pCi/L. According to Google,
> 1 pCi/L is equal to 37 Bq/m3
Our EPA recommends remediation if your home measures more than two, strongly so if it measures more than 4 pCi/L.
That 4 number is supposedly equivalent to smoking 8 cigarettes a day, in terms of cancer risk.
Here in the upper Midwest US, geology creating more radon buildup combined with cold winters mean that our basements are in a constant state of slightly negative air pressure, drawing it inside.
Not only can it enter through cracks in the concrete basement walls and floors, but many or most homes will have an opening in the floor somewhere for a sump pump to help move spring snow melt moisture away from the house.
Supposedly, between 1/3 and 2/5 homes in the US have or need radon remediation, and it supposedly is the second-leading cause of lung cancer here, after smoking tobacco.
I'm vaguely aware that radon testing is one of the things you should do when buying a house, but it's never really come up as an actual problem for anyone I know. My indoor air sensor claims that my apartment averages 0.6 (pCi/l), so it's very far from being an issue.
