Website home about our city

Radon Comments

submit your comments
You can view comments 6 different ways. Click below to sort comments

Sort options:
date (descending) | date (ascending) | affiliation | support (descending) | support (ascending)
Name/Affiliation: cherie trine Citizen/general public
Submitted on: Jul-11-2004
Level of Support: 10

Comments:
Radon requirements are similar to safe wiring requirements that help ensure safety. Everyone's health insurance rises to cover the costs of cancer. I am a poor person and will probably never live in a new house, yet I support safe housing because cancer is a huge cost to society that effects us all.

City Action:
Thanks for your comments.
Name/Affiliation: Chris Citizen/general public
Submitted on: Jun-01-2004
Level of Support: 10

Comments:
YES! Have you ever had any form of Cancer? If so, you know first hand what kind of battle it can be, especially since you are still alive to tell about it. I see people talking about housing costs.. I would pay $3000 to prevent a radon/lung cancer problem in a heart beat as opposed to paying tens of thousands of dollars for medical treatment. It's a no brainer!

City Action:
Thanks for your comment.
Name/Affiliation: Courtney Other
Submitted on: Dec-17-2003
Level of Support: 9

Comments:
As a student studying in this field I think requiring radon systems in new homes is a good idea. While some feel studies on radon are inconclusive, there is enough evidence to show that there are associated health risks. In my opinion the installation of radon systems is a VERY small additional cost towards the cost of a six figure home. For a couple hundred dollars more we could be significantly reducing potential health issues down the road.

City Action:
Thanks for your comments.
Name/Affiliation: Dean Rodahl Citizen/general public
Submitted on: Oct-20-2003
Level of Support: 0

Comments:
No, I don't believe additional regulations by our city gov't is the answer. The responsibility lies with the homeowner on whether they feel it is worthwhile. This is more gov't regulation that only adds to the cost of housing.

City Action:
Thanks for your comment.
Name/Affiliation: Anonymous Citizen/general public
Submitted on: Oct-20-2003
Level of Support: 10

Comments:
YES!!!! I believe it is important for home buyers to understand the risks. That a few extra dollars for a system should be an non-issue.

City Action:
Thank you for your comment.
Name/Affiliation: Marla Citizen/general public
Submitted on: Oct-13-2003
Level of Support: 0

Comments:
The city should bring clean fresh water to our homes, remove sewage and take care of the roads-period. That's it. Stop wasting my money on everything else you do.

City Action:
Thanks for your comments.
Name/Affiliation: Catherine Hutchinson Citizen/general public
Submitted on: Aug-13-2003
Level of Support: 0

Comments:
The city should require the builder construct the home so that a passive or active radon elimination system can be placed in the home according to the desires of the homeowner. Mandating a passive or active system in the home ignores determining the actual need for such expense. Your comment form ignores the various options for radon mitigation and thus is an invalid survey.

City Action:
To clairify, this comment form is not intended to be a scientifically valid survey. The Natural Resources Department is gathering public comment about a possible change to the building code. Your input will be passed along to City Council when they consider the matter September 16th. Thanks for your comment.
Name/Affiliation: Anonymous Citizen/general public
Submitted on: Aug-01-2003
Level of Support: 0

Comments:
This issue should be studied. Here is a link about radon that contains some additional information on the radon subject. http://cnts.wpi.edu/RSH/Docs/RSHSympNov00/Becker.htm My viewpoint is that in terms of public health risk, mold and mildew growth in the building poses a significant health risk and it is not being tested for during real estate transactions. The research on radon has led to testing and remediation.

City Action:
Thanks for your comment.
Name/Affiliation: Linda Martin Radon professional
Submitted on: Jul-30-2003
Level of Support: 10

Comments:
I believe that passive systems would be the best approach as long as a test is required; then people will have the knowledge and means available to them to make an educated decision. My second choice would be active systems.

City Action:
Thanks for your comments.
Name/Affiliation: Albert Samuelson Citizen/general public
Submitted on: Jul-18-2003
Level of Support: 10

Comments:
My home (1994) @ 1343 Mount Simon Drive Livermore--three room air test averaged 24 pCi/L--Retro fit mitigation cost w/blower $3000--Well water tested 10,700 pCi/L and Uranium, mg/l (t)---0.021--

City Action:
Thanks for your comments.
1 - 10 | next page
View by category (currently showing all comments)