ECHOES AND UPDATES

Dear Dr. Beckmann: 10/24/1988

As a person committed to energy conservation, I wish to take exception to statements you have made over the last few years seeming to connect increased radon exposure to energy conserva- tion, as if conservation were the cause. I presume you are equating conservation to increased air tightness. [Yes, l am, P.B.]

My understanding is that the most recent and extensive studies by our national laboratories find little correlation between exces-sive radon concentration and air tightness in a home, but rather a correlation to source strength . . . Simple and inexpensive features can be incorporated [in homes] allowing radon mitigation, should it prove necessary . . .

Be fair enough to admit that conservation is the cheapest "source" of energy as of now, even cheaper than nuclear.

Dear Mr Zenger:

Of course the radon concentration is primarily dependent on the source strength, just as skin burns are primarily dependent on the heat flow from a fire. But to determine whether an asbestos suit is better protection than pajamas, we must test the two under the same conditions, including source strength. This is difficult to do for radon vs. energy conservation over a prolonged period of time under other-wise exactly the same conditions in the type of measurements you refer to. There is, however, one reliable "experiment" made under just those conditions in Grand Junction, Colo., where (due to uranium tailings under some houses) radon levels were measured in many houses and buildings (including some not affected by the tail-ings) in the late 1960s. After steep price rises of energy caused strict conservation measures in the mid-70s, the Colo. Dept. of Health re-turned to these same sites, it found an average increase of 14% in radon concentration, corresponding to an increased lung burden of 258 mrem/yr [AtE Jun 80]. That "experiment" was unintended, but is clean beyond dispute.

Radon-mitigating features, such as air-to-air heat exchangers, are neither inexpensive nor simple; they are also bothersome to install and could not compete with cheap energy that allows people to ven-tilate as they used to. And cheap energy is a matter of eliminating the political obstructions blocking it.

You are right to put "source" in quotation marks, for conserva-tion is no more a source of energy than money under the mattress is a source of income. It is, in any case, not cheaper than unobstructed nuclear energy: certainly not in lives and health, nor even in dollars. If it were, there would be no need for coercive legislation or ideologi-cal pressures. Why are no such measures necessary to prevent people throwing their jewelry into the sea?

Many readers protested my mention of the beginning of the 21^st century, which hinges on whether there was a year zero. If there wasn't, it's an arithmetical nightmare: 1 year before year 1 is 1-1=-1 (???).

Alas, history takes precedence over arithmetic. The Gregorian Calendar does not have a year zero, and I was wrong. The 21^st century starts on Jan. 1, 2001.

Turkey Tenure Till Decrepitude: the reelection rate of incum-bents in the House of ill repute is no longer 98.4% [AtE Nov 88]; it is now 99.0%. To supplement their starvation wage of $87,000/yr, sena-tors and reps take payola from lobbies and pressure groups in the form of "speech" fees, often sparing their donors the pain of listening to any speech. In a recently released report, Common Cause reports a total of $10 million in baksheesh from the lobbyists to their underlings. Ro$tenov$ki took $245,000, Coelho $78,500, $chroeder $50,600, $olarz $34,200, $chneider $32,000. List of names and amounts of payola will appear soon in Fort Freedom's Rat Hole.

The 150-ton Japanese "Ship of Hope" (Yamato), propelled by magneto-hydrodynamics [AtE May 88], to be launched in 1990, is getting the Navy interested for subs, since the propulsion avoids noisy vibrations, says the newsletter Inside the Pentagon (10/28/88) .

The ozone "hole" appearing every October was smaller this year (15% depletion, last year 50%). It was bigger in 1985, smaller in 1986 (I erred on this in July), bigger in 1987. The rule about this "threat second only to nuclear war:" when bigger, blame CFCs; when smaller, blame them again.

To find the real cost of solar power, call Photocomm Inc., 800-544-6466 for a catalog and be sure to ask for a price list. A 4 kW home system costs $7,377 plus installation. The 5 kW standby gaso-line generator (Honda) at the AtE Corporate Headquarters cost $650 (and will run all night).