There is a saying: “The truth is what is so.”

The truth is---what is so.

Ponder this for a moment…..

After recent events here in the rain, it should be obvious to everyone just how true this statement is.  There is tremendous danger in “assuming” that what we think is true---is in fact true.  It is entirely possible for large numbers of people to be misinformed by non-digital information as much as we can be fooled by digital information.

Right off the bat, I want to make it clear that in some cases it may not even be possible to know what the truth is.  It is obvious to me that when it comes to those sorts of things---it is best to keep an open mind.

When the government "gets on board" and says something is “so” it becomes even more difficult to keep an open mind.  In fact, the government's simply saying something is “so,” is enough to convince most people---end of discussion.  When that happens, a chain of events that affects anyone tied into, and dependent on, the government's  information stream is affected.  I find this fascinating in light of how most of us at one time or another speaks of not trusting the government.  Just look at all the bickering about how the government handles almost anything.  Yet when it comes to other things we just turn into the Stepford Wives. 

While the psychology of all of this would make for a better subject of a book, as opposed to a blog post, I will do my best to keep this from turning into a book.

Today I want to talk about Radon---and raise the question: "What is the real truth about radon? 

Rather than claim that I personally know what the “truth” is, I am going to attempt to show that there is at least the possibility that there may be a truth that is different than what one is used to hearing regarding Radon.  I would ask that you keep an open mind and check out the hard science behind Radon.  If you start to dig deep, you will notice that a lot of what is claimed about radon is in fact parroting of information that is dubious at best.

So what is Radon?

1.  Radon is a colorless, odorless, radioactive gas.  It is a result of the decay of uranium and is present to some degree everywhere on the planet.  It is found in higher concentrations in some areas of the country than in other areas.  If that was all we had to know about radon, life would be simple.

2.  Radon is a multi-billion dollar industry.  There is a tremendous amount of money to be made by testing for radon and mitigation of radon.  Like other fear based industries it is fairly easy to get people on board with misinformation and half-truths.  Once on board and invested, it is very difficult to jump off the wagon.

So which is closer to the truth?  Are both the truth?  Well obviously the first statement is true.  Perhaps not so obvious---the second statement is true as well.

Now let’s visit the science behind the claims that Radon is a health risk.  If there was no purported health concern regarding Radon there would be no industry built up around it.

I will start out by quoting Forensic Industrial Hygienist, Caoimhin Connell:  “A large portion of the general population is under the misconception that the frequently published risks associated with radon are well accepted scientific facts. In reality, the vast majority of well designed studies do not support policy or positions that exposures to indoor radon pose a significant threat to health, and indeed, the majority of those studies indicate that, at concentrations typically seen in homes, as the level of radon increases, the risk of lung cancer goes down, not up.”

Now I don’t know about you, but this sounds HUGELY different than what we are used to hearing from those that have a vested interest in promoting radon as being a problem.

A blog post is an extremely poor means to cover this topic adequately.  The most I can hope for is that my post will peak your interest enough to read the “story” behind this topic on your own.  As an introduction to the topic I recommend reading, Radon—A Brief Discussion, by Caoimhin P. Connell.  This article is where the above quote came from, and after reading it I suspect that most will find it difficult to not at least question the claims made by the EPA.

It is important to keep in mind that political organizations such as the EPA (we would love to think they are “neutral” wouldn’t we?), while they produce reports that attest to the elevated risk associated with radon, according to Caoimhin Connell, “to date (2010) there are no scientific studies that have ever actually shown that radon gas, as typically seen in houses, increases the risk of cancer.”  In a position statement by the Health Physics Society “…risks of health effects are either too small to be observed or are non-existent.”  The EPA itself even admits that there is no hard evidence to support the notion that Radon causes cancer at levels found in homes, but instead extrapolates its version of the truth from the fact that it is carcinogenic in amounts that miners are exposed to.  Such an extrapolation is simply not supported by current knowledge.

Other interesting stuff that one can find, if one digs into the literature far enough (and is thoroughly discussed in Radon—A Brief Discussion) is that not only does the presence of radon in homes not increase the risk of cancer but that in homes with lower than normal levels of radon, health risks actually slightly increase.  Exactly backwards of what the radon industry would have one believe.

In a study undertaken by Richard E. Thompson, and published in 2011 (EPIDEMIOLOGICAL EVIDENCE FOR POSSIBLE RADIATION HORMESIS FROM RADON EXPOSURE: A CASE-CONTROL STUDY CONDUCTED IN WORCESTER, MA) it was also found that Radon exposure in homes actually decreases the risk of lung cancers.  So that no one has to look it up, "Hormesis" is the principle that some things that are harmful in large doses actually have a beneficial effect in small doses.  Doesn't his sound like so many things we consume?  While Radon clearly has a detrimental effect on human tissue at the levels found in mines, there is no comparison between the very highest levels found in homes in relation to levels found in mines---and certainly no comparison behind levels "typical" of homes that are considered to be in "actionable" areas.

The EPA has added two new studies to its website that attempts to deal with the criticism that concerns about radon were improperly extrapolated from studies of miners exposed to HUGE doses of radon.  These studies, called "pooling studies," are where one combines the results of many studies and attempts to come up with conclusions more to one's liking than would otherwise be gleaned from the studies individually.  Of course this is a bit "cynical" interpretation, but pretty much what this pooling approach amounts to.

While I realize that I am in full and familiar uniform as Don Quixote (those that know me have seen me ride this horse before) when it comes to doing battle with the Giant Radon Industry, I will end my ride today hoping that you will do a little more real investigation of the topic on your own.  

With a squeaking and crunching of armor I will leave you with this important excerpt from, U.S. Department of Energy, (Radon- Radon Research Program, FY 1989, DOE/ER-448P., March 1990), “Currently there is very little information about...the health effects associated with exposures to radon at levels believed to be commonly encountered by the public. The only human data available for predicting the risks to the public are studies examining the health effects of exposure to radon and its progeny in underground miners. This information would be appropriate for predicting the risks to the public if everyone was a miner, everyone lived in mines, and a large fraction of the general population smoked cigarettes.”

Based on the 2011 study by Richard E. Thompson, this statement is just as true today as it was in 1990 and is likely why every other TV add is not about the dangers of radon, why there aren’t Radon billboards on every street corner or the sides of every bus, and why most of the information and warnings we do hear about radon is from the industry that is built-up around it---a case of following the money.

Charles Buell, real estate inspections in Seattle

While most people know what they want in a house, sooner or later they have to come to terms with what they don’t want in a house.
I am not talking about whether it is red or green or even how many bedrooms it has.  Most people recognize that paint colors can be changed and if they needed a three bedroom house they most likely wouldn’t be looking at two bedroom houses.

Sometimes I think agents could help their buyers sort through some of the heart aches that come with falling in love with a house only to find out when they get the home inspected that it has “one of those things” on their list that they don’t want in a house.  Of course that list varies with every buyer so it becomes imperative that agents get to know what their buyers really want---to get to know what their personal deal breakers are.

As an example of what I am talking about, if one has a buyer that is REALLY concerned about lead paint (has two very small children and another one on the way) why would any house built prior to 1978 even be in the running?

Or the same for asbestos, except this would include homes into the mid 80’s.

Now there is going to be some leeway with these numbers---depending on the amount of remodeling done and the methods of original construction, but as general guidelines these dates should be considered limiting factors for anyone concerned about either of these substances.

I routinely have clients tell me they are very concerned about both of these materials and yet they are asking me to inspect pre-1920 homes.  Why even bother with the inspection?  Homes from this time period have an almost 100 percent chance of having at least one of these materials---and probably both of them.  There is nothing about the inspection process that will magically make these things disappear. 

I thought it might be informative to create a list with the likely date at which the material/issue stopped being a concern.  These are issues that I frequently find to be “deal breakers” for some people.

The list will start with issues that are more difficult to address and have regulatory consequences if not dealt with appropriately, and be followed by issues that, while problematic, are a little bit easier to deal with but nonetheless concerns that frequently turn into deal breakers when purchasing homes.

Lead:  1978

Lead in Solder (copper pipes):  1988

Asbestos (in a cornucopia of materials): 1985

Steel Re-inforced Concrete Foundations:  1950

Knob & Tube Wiring:  1955

Ungrounded wiring:  1965

Aluminum wiring:  1965-1976

In my opinion, the last three things on the list should almost never be deal breakers.  In most cases, if one cannot afford to rewire a house, one perhaps cannot really afford a house.  The cost of rewiring a home is not a very big percentage of the total cost of a home.  In some more depressed areas of the country this may not be true; however in the Seattle market it is certainly true.

There is another list of items that sometimes turn into deal killers:

Mold:  Any age of home

Rats:  Any age of home

I am sorry I can’t give you any dates with these issues.  Both however, can usually be resolved.

Charles Buell, Real Estate Inspections in Seattle

I know you don’t think I am minding my own business when I chew on things. 

But I really am.

I really don’t understand how you can criticize me when you let the dog chew on everything in sight.  While you might scold him, you end up petting him on the head nonetheless. I just don't get it.

Nobody even wants to pet me on the head.  I know some of my hybridized cousins have “crossed over,” but that is another whole story.

And don’t get me started about the cat. 

The other night I saw what she did to the door jamb and the side of the couch.

I can see by the look on your face that you want to know how I know this?

Well, if I answered that, I would no longer be able to eat the dog’s left over’s, eat the cat’s left over’s or get into Jonnies candy hid in the shoe in the back of his closet.

Suffice it to say I have means---if you know what I mean by means.

Please keep in mind that I HAVE to chew on things.  If I don’t chew on things my teeth can actually grow to the point that I could not eat and I might die.  I really don’t think that Fido and Fur Ball are going to die if they stop chewing on things.  Life could not be that just.

Anyway, that is why the wiring in your attic looks the way it does.  And if you are going to provide me with something to chew on that gives me a slight buzz at the same time---I am going for it.

After all, you light up my life! 

Charles Buell, Real Estate Inspections in Seattle

This is another one of those form or function posts where, in this case the way it was done originally was superior to the way that supposedly “looked” better.

 Take a close look at the following picture:

Note the downspout and how it runs through the decorative trim work.

Notice the water shining on the edge of the trim work---wet from the leaking downspout connection at the very top.

Notice the wet darker color brick behind the downspout below the trim work.

Notice the whitish efflorescence on the brick at both sides on the arches above the windows.

Now if you look VERY closely you should be able to see a slight notch---about the width of the downspout on the edge of the trim work---in line with the current downspout.

Originally the downspout wrapped around the trim work instead of running through it.  Changing it so that it “looked” better actually has created a problem much worse than the way it looked.  With the downspout right against the stucco and brick there is no way to adequately seal around the pipe where it runs through the trim.  Any water that hits the stucco (whether from the leaking downspout or wind driven rain) and finds its way behind the downspout is going to get into the wood trim as well as the brickwork below.  Over time, this water inrusion has caused some rot in the wood trim as well as the the efflorescence and intrusion into the brick that are evident.

The best solution is of course to wrap the downspout around the trim work---the way it used to be and properly patch the hole.

Charles Buell, Real Estate Inspections in Seattle

Growing up on the farm in rural Connecticut in the 1950’s, like kids everywhere, we had a “real” tire swing.

You know the type.  You take a discarded, worn out, tire from the pile of junk headed to the dump and drill two holes in it---opposite each other---one for the rope and one so that it won’t hold water when it is hung in the tree.

It was great fun hanging on the inside of the tire and then having one of the other kids wind it around and around until the rope looked like a bunch of knots---and then let the tire spin.  Of course trying to walk a straight line afterwards was next to impossible.  I am not sure why kids like to get intoxicated in this manner---but it seems pretty universal.

Sometimes we would just simply see how many of us we could get on it at once.  With 9 of us, three families of three kids each, there were always enough kids around to create a pile of laughter under the tire swing after it had gained its freedom.

Can you feel the cotton clouds as you lay on your back looking up at the tire making great pendulous arcs in the blue sky?

All these thoughts of tire swings came back to me at a recent inspection where I found this different sort of tire swing.  All made from one single tire---quite clever really. 

And morphed into a horse---what more could a kid want.

Charles Buell, Real Estate Inspections in Seattle

Form follows function---or not!

I know I am tilting at windmills when it comes to even suggesting that the shape of things should have anything to do with function.  We have gotten so good at making things, that we have come to expect, even demand, that things look the way we want them to---regardless of that thing’s function.

Whether it is the quest to make a better mousetrap or whether it has more to do with the simple fact that we make things look the way they do because we can, humans seem to find no end to being “creative.”  We use the excuse that we are trying to make something better, but it seems that more often we are merely making it different looking because we can.  In some cases, to justify our jobs perhaps.

While I can make a strong case that it has less to do with being “creative” and more to do with being “inventive,” I don’t want to bore you with the distinction in this post---although having that discussion in the comments might be fun.

At an inspection the other day I came across a sink that epitomizes this problem.  This sink pushes the envelope of “form” so far, function is truly secondary.  Now while the problem with this sink is little different from a sink that has no overflow at all (something I would argue is a problem regardless) this sink does have an overflow---it just isn’t functional.  When there is in fact an overflow present, wouldn’t it be logical to take the leap of faith that it might actually function?

When this sink is filled, water actually flows over the low edge before it goes down the overflow---I know, I learned the hard way. 

Fortunately I always carry a sponge in my bag of tricks.

Charles Buell, Real Estate Inspections in Seattle

The focus of this blog post is the upper level balcony visible in the following photo.

Standing on the balcony, it is about 16 feet to the carport floor below.  Surely a fall from this level, onto the hard concrete below, could prove deadly or result in injuries perhaps worse than death.

The problem is the barrier railing. 

The issue with the railing is not readily apparent, and from the ground it certainly looks fine.  From the deck itself however, we can see that the barrier railing is spliced right in the middle---and merely toe-nailed together. 

This barrier certainly would not resist the impact that could be produced by a couple of kid’s rough-housing, as kids are prone to do.  The barrier can’t just look OK---it has to be OK.

At the very least it should be one solid piece the length of the deck, and a secondary solid piece under the top piece the whole length of the deck would be even better.

Let’s hope it gets repaired prior to something bad happening.

Charles Buell, Real Estate Inspections in Seattle

As I was leaving an inspection the other day I drove by the house pictured here.

I have seen many attempts at putting roofs on these houses designed to look like old English Thatch roofs.  While I can appreciate the desire to mimic the old look, I have to say that I have never seen one pull off the mimic with much degree of success.

What is it about human beings that we have to make new things look like old things?  There is no end to the number of faux materials out there.  We see it in non-wood flooring made to look like wood.  Non-wood siding made to look like wood.  Non-wood roofing made to look like wood.  Painted wood made to look like wood.

Notice a theme here?

We love wood.  Wood is life.  Most of civilization revolves around the use of wood.  Second only to wood is stone.  Think of all the products made to look like stone.  How about faux-stone siding?  Stone imprinted concrete flatwork. 

Both consciously and unconsciously, we know that we can breathe a certain amount of life into synthetic materials by making them look like natural materials.

In the case of the roof above the use of natural materials to mimic natural materials is likely not going to be successful in the long run and was likely VERY costly to do.  I have seen this same type of roof covered with asphalt composition shingles done more successfully than the wood shingles.

No matter what is done, the roof will never look even remotely like thatch. For that reason we might as well choose materials totally suited to curved installations---like metal---or even asphalt.  No matter how you look at it, this is an expensive roof to build, to cover, and to maintain, so choosing the appropriate approach should probably have started back on the drawing board.

When someone said, “I want a house that looks like an old English Thatch roof house,” the designer should have said, “That is not possible.”  They then could have shown some of these various attempts and likely (or perhaps obviously in this case) the buyer would have chosen one of those possibilities. They could have been informed of the heavy cost of these possibilities that were going to end up not looking like the real thing.  They could have been informed of the considerable maintenance involved in the various possible choices.

If you look close at the curved areas of the roof, one can see the extent of the face nailing that was necessary to force these wood shingles to conform to the roof. 

Every single one of those shiny spots is a nail head.

For wood shingles to perform properly there should be no face nailing like this.  Every nail represents a possible leak point.  Some of the risk of leaks can be mitigated by various types of roofing underlayment, but I still consider the risk a nightmare over time.

Sometimes getting what we want is difficult.

Sometimes we end up faced with wanting what we get.

Charles Buell, Seattle Home Inspector

In my previous incarnation as a builder, I had a client named Tom.  He had a brother named Dick and another brother named Harry.  I have always thought what “interesting,” and hopefully humorous, parents the boys must have had.  No matter what we blog about---some will find the information interesting and some won’t.  When one finds the story or information of sufficient interest, we have the good fortune, with the ActiveRain platform, to comment back to the story teller.

Think about just how rare this actually is.

Well it is not so unusual in terms of the many other forums in cyberspace, but in terms of traditional ways of storytelling it is all but impossible, or is left to “letters to the editor” types of comments back.  Occassionally you might hear back from Dear Abby.  Wouldn’t you have loved when you got done reading 1984 or The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe or The Bible that you could have left a comment to the author---in REAL time? 

I am sure we all would have had some “profound” comments to leave.

Now let’s pretend for a moment that we could in fact leave a comment after reading one of these books.  Obviously these are extreme examples because does anyone actually expect they would ever hear back?  Obviously these authors are not any Tom, Dick or Harry.  But suppose you were to leave a comment and actually did get a comment back! 

Can you imagine how excited you would be?  It might even lead to another whole blog post---or several posts for that matter. 

I am betting that if you ever did get such a comment, you would indeed comment back.  Yes?

Well the point of this post is that when I get a comment back from someone on one of my posts (even though nothing I write is likely on a par with the fore mentioned books) I think that if someone takes the time to leave a comment, I can take the time to acknowledge them for doing so.

Now I suppose that lots of people are merely commenting to get their ten points, and may not even care if I ever acknowledge them.  However, I don’t want to risk offending anyone---perhaps I am old fashioned in this regard.  I know that I frequently check comments I have left to see if anyone has commented back.  I mean what if they want to continue the conversation?

I am not talking about occasionally being overwhelmed by ones real life to such an extent that one just doesn’t have time to comment back. 

I am talking about deliberately not commenting back---end of conversation.

So when we are out there being Tom, Dick or Harriet---telling our stories---and people have something to say back, what is the appropriate thing to do?

Are we waiting for George Orwell, CS Lewis, or God to comment first?

I like to think of commenting back as opening the door to continuing the conversation. 

Most of the time it just brings closure to the comment---but often it takes the post to a whole other level and sometimes even takes on a life of its own.

Charles Buell, Seattle Home Inspector