Chemistry Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of chemistry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChemistryWikipedia:WikiProject ChemistryTemplate:WikiProject ChemistryChemistry articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Medicine Mid‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Stanley Watras was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 05 July 2010 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Health effects of radon. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[noble gas compound#Radon|a few compounds]] Anchor noble gas compound#Radon links to a specific web page: Radon.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Justification for creating this article

Hey, I created this article because the radon article was far too long. All I did was copy the last three sections of the article, plus the lead, rejigger it slightly, and paste it here. I'm going to hold off on actually paring the radon article back until this one appears to be accepted by people. See discussions at Talk:Radon#Article_length, and also at Wikipedia:Peer_review/Radon/archive3 if you would like to know more. ManfromButtonwillow (talk) 08:46, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see that a request for speedy deletion has been made, and I'm not going to put up much of a fight. I just want to make sure that the administrators know what my reasoning was before they delete it! ManfromButtonwillow (talk) 11:18, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the template, as split pages are one of the exclusions from the A10 criterion. snigbrook (talk) 16:30, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Snigbrook. I'm going to start looking at the original article now! 166.190.35.214 (talk) 21:30, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

copy from radon therapy article

This article was nominated for deletion on 22 September 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

I'm not a doctor, and I do not intend to offer any medical advice. I do not intend to get into medical discussions and debates. The fact is that radon therapy is used all over the world. This article simply states the facts that radon therapy is used here, there, and over there. Neutrality of this article can not be disputed, except by those who work for Big Pharma, selling pharmaceutical drugs for arthritis.

--Mikevilkin (talk) 03:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The word "noble" used repeatedly in the article, means "chemically inert" and does not imply goodness or healing qualities, therefore it is irrelevant, but well-chosen to create a favorable impression.

This article makes no attempt to explain WHY radon might help any illness. A journey to Lourdes MIGHT be beneficial. Placebos have often been shown to have beneficial effects as well.

The article also mentioned that visitors to radon mines are able to "bask" in the radiation, much as one might "bask" in the sun. This is a favorable way to present the idea of venturing underground to expose oneself to radiation.

As far as "arriving in a wheelchair and walking out on one's own" is concerned, I will be happy to obtain a wheelchair and provide a convincing demonstration of how this can occur for anyone who is interested.

A few other comments:

1. Once a mine has been completely exploited, nothing is left but a (probably radioactive) and worthless hole in the ground. Charging sick people to enter it and stay for a while creates a lucrative source of income. Over time a body of testimonials and evidence can be developed. This can be referred to as "evidence-based effective treatment" without any further explanation of its effectiveness.

2. During the 19th century, petroleum oil was sold for its curative properties - it was nothing but petroleum that seeped out of the ground and was bottled for drinking.

3. The pdf article from Doctor Becker also offers no explanation for the reported therapeutic effects of radiation. It simply cites the history and related literature of such treatments, as if this justifies the means.Skydog69 (talk) 09:41, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Skydog69 (talk • contribs) 09:28, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fringe theories noticeboard

I'd like to record that I've placed a link to this page on the fringe theories noticeboard. --Thin boy 00 @218, i.e. 04:13, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So... What are the health effects?

I read this article and only thing I could see was some lung cancer. Nothing else? No headaches or something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.225.243.80 (talk) 23:31, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Accuracy of Radon's contribution to mean public exposure?

This statement "Radon is responsible for the majority of the mean public exposure to ionizing radiation." can't be right since about half of mean public exposure to ionizing radiation in the USA is from medical diagnostics and treatment. That leaves less than half for *all* natural sources of which Radon is only a part. See http://www.unscear.org/docs/reports/2008/09-86753_Report_2008_Annex_A.pdf and https://www.iaea.org/Publications/Booklets/RadPeopleEnv/pdf/chapter_4.pdf which puts Radon at 43% of global average. The USA has a much higher medical exposure rate, so Radon's contribution is correspondingly less. This study http://www.diagnosticimaging.com/articles/ionizing-radiation-exposure-skyrockets-1980s-0 in 2006 shows Radon was down to 37% and medical exposures have increased since then.Cuhlik (talk) 16:17, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As you noted, the US is an outlier. Unless specified otherwise, an article should represent a worldwide view of the subject. Kolbasz (talk) 08:35, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on Health effects of radon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:11, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dubiousness of the exaggerated claims from the radon spa bath study

I added more balanced language and also reflected the disclaimers the researchers expressed themselves. As well as some notable exclusions of participants in the study. Patients who required intervention were excluded from the study group, the claims were greatly exaggerated by the wellness community. And the methodology is full of problems. Not to mention, and I will be the first to admit, while the sponsors behind studies don't change the outcome, if a health insurance company is claiming a better treatment because it's cheaper compared to the established protocol? And the reasoning behind the supposed 'benefits' was "the integration of radon into the skin"? Melasaoirse (talk) 16:27, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]