Re:Lung Cancer Rates by State
by rufus_foreman on Saturday October 15, 2022 @05:14PM
(#33218729)
>> so the state of Missouri probably had different testing regulations and methodologies than its neighbors like Iowa and Illinois
Then the map doesn't show risk of radon. It's worthless for that purpose.
"Different political institutions have different standards for what is a radon risk."
It's a map of different political institutions then. That's fine. Just don't try to sell a map of political institutions as a map of radon risk when that is obvious bullshit. I mean it's completely obvious from the boundary.
Re:Lung Cancer Rates by State
by theGnuMe on Sunday October 16, 2022 @08:27AM
(#33223071)
Radon Risk is well established. If itβs higher than a specific limit you need to mitigate. This map just indicates where it is likely to be higher on average based on geology.
Then the map doesn't show risk of radon. It's worthless for that purpose.
"Different political institutions have different standards for what is a radon risk."
It's a map of different political institutions then. That's fine. Just don't try to sell a map of political institutions as a map of radon risk when that is obvious bullshit. I mean it's completely obvious from the boundary.
100% obvious bullshit.