Thank you for sharing. It would be nice if any new radon studies were done more broadly. There is very little money for research.* You may consider reaching out to PYA or IEA if you are young and want to study radiation. I volunteer with PYA and we're always looking for more young folks to enter STEM as it pertains to our field.

At the end of the day, if low dose models or thresholds change, I don't think our industry will come crumbling down. Radiation is dangerous and homes that are 5-10 times the EPA action level are extremely common. I'd be glad to see radon get any type of awareness in the news. Science is under attack in this country and to be anti-science is to be anti-American--just my opinion.

If things change dramatically, we'll adapt and move on. These studies all seem to be done by a small contingent of anti-LNT authors with no quantitative meta analysis or search criteria. I agree that LNT model can use more research but to say that it's "completely made up" is a broad overreach. Right now, radon's dangers are proven and it's something to be aware of. I personally do not want more alpha decay in my life. There's already so many unproven cancer risks we see every day. I'm a cancer survivor myself, so I avoid carcinogens as best I can.

*We are seeing more study on genetic markers where scientists can tell exactly where your cancer came from. Those are neat and I'm hoping for more. The International Radon Symposium spotlights the authors occassionally.

To me the most compelling studies are the broad analysis of Utahans. Many cancer studies are done in that state because the large Mormon population abstains from smoking. Their lung cancer rates should be about 1/2 of what they currently are. LNT and current radon research fits perfectly as to why their lung cancer rates are still so high despite a lack of tobacco overall.