RADON SURVEY OF RECENT HOME BUYERS
Michael Kitto
Wadsworth Center, New York State Department of Health, P.O. Box 509, Albany, NY
12201
School of Public Health, State University of New York, Rensselaer, NY 12144

ABSTRACT
In

an

effort

disclosure

during

to

evaluate

real-estate

the

prevalence

transactions,

of

radon

surveys

of

recent home buyers regarding radon awareness, testing, and
remediation were conducted in 26 counties in four regions
of New York State.

A 1999 survey, canvassing 2220 buyers

in 12 counties, produced 647 responses. The 2002 survey,
canvassing 5299 buyers in 14 different counties, produced
an

additional

measurements

705

responses.

during

real-estate

Radon

disclosure

transactions

and
were

infrequent in counties with low radon potential, but quite
prevalent in higher-risk counties.

Overall, radon played a

minimal role in buyers’ decisions regarding home purchase.
As a free radon test kit and analysis were provided with
each

completed

compared

with

survey,

the

estimated

corresponding counties.

measurement
radon

results

potentials

could
for

be
the

INTRODUCTION
Radon (222Rn) is a gaseous decay product of radium, a
naturally
soils.

occurring

radionuclide

found

in

all

rocks

and

Radon typically enters homes at the soil-foundation

interface, and it contributes over half of the radiation
dose received by the public from all sources.
epidemiological

studies

have

linked

Extensive

inhalation

of

the

radioactive decay products of radon to an increased risk of
lung

cancer,

attributed

and

to

nearly

radon

22,000

annually

in

lung-cancer
the

United

deaths
States

are
(1).

While a substantial fraction of all indoor-radon testing
and mitigations in some States occurs during real-estate
sales

of

exists

on

single-family
i)

who

houses

conducts

the

(2),

little

information

measurements,

ii)

the

likelihood of radon disclosure during home sales, and iii)
the radon-reduction strategies implemented at these newly
acquired homes.
Previous data regarding buyers’ consideration of radon
during

house

obtained

sales

through

in

New

York

interviews

State

(NYS)

conducted

questionnaires sent to home owners (3).

have
with

been
and

Among owners of

1,113 homes in NYS, that had been measured at >4 pCi/L of
radon, 60% reported that they had taken action to reduce
radon exposure.

The actions included reduced time spent in

the basement, increased ventilation, and installation of an
active mitigation system.

The authors of that study noted

that this action rate was extraordinary, compared to rates
observed elsewhere.
The current project has surveyed homeowners involved
in recent house sales.

An objective of this study was to

obtain information from four regions of NYS regarding the
occurrence

of

radon

disclosure,

measurements,

and

remediations during the recent sales transactions, as well
as the influence posed by the presence of radon, on the
purchase of a home.
home

buyers

radon,

who

are

The survey provided data on whether

receiving

provides

this

information
information,

regarding
and

indoor

whether

the

information provided is accurate.

EXPERIMENTAL
During two studies conducted in 99-00 and 01-02, home
buyers in a total of 26 counties
in

four

regions

of

NYS

(Figure

1)

were

targeted,

to

examine the prevalence of radon disclosures during realestate transactions.
and,

as

shown

in

These regions encompass much of NYS
Table

1,

include

counties

with

low

population and low radon potential (Region 3), as well as
counties

with

high

population

and

substantial

radon

potential (Region 4).

Information on single-family homes

sold in 12 counties from March 1 to May 30 in 1999 and in
14 additional counties from March 1 to May 30 in 2001, was
extracted from the NYS Office of Real Property Services
(ORPS)

tax

necessary

database.

to

verify

The
the

ORPS-derived

location

of

each

addresses
house

were

in

the

county, as zip codes often cross county borders and cannot
be used to locate houses within political boundaries. For
the two 3-month periods, the number of eligible home buyers
for this study ranged from 26 in Lewis County to 1309 in
Orange

County,

county.

an

average

of

about

380

homes

per

The survey and measurements were done during the

1999-2000
home

with

and

received

explaining

the

2001-2002
a

heating

package

study,

a

seasons.

containing

page

Each
a

describing

cover
radon

targeted
letter
and

its

risks, a dated detector application, and a survey form.
Participants returning the applications were mailed a 3”
charcoal detector; this, following exposure, was mailed by
the home buyer to the contracted, certified laboratory for
analysis.

Radon concentration results were sent to the

participating home buyer.

All homes with >20 pCi/L radon

were provided with two follow-up detectors.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

1999 Home buyer measurements
Of the 2551 detector applications mailed during the 3month

period

counties,
errors

to

331

or

single-family

letters

delivery

were

homes

returned

problems,

and

located
due

647

in

to

the

12

addressing

surveys

and

588

detector applications were completed by the homeowners and
returned to us.

The results are summarized in Table 2.

Radon detectors were mailed to responding participants, but
only 218 detectors were properly exposed and returned for
measurement

to

the

contracted

laboratory.

The

primary

reason for exclusion of deployed detectors from the data
set was overexposure of the canister by the homeowner (>7
days).

Although

instructions

were

included

with

the

charcoal canisters, it appears that many home buyers either
did not read or did not fully understand them.

Overall,

the return rates for the applications and questionnaires
were about 27% and 29%, respectively.

Cortland County had

the highest return rate of the questionnaires (39%), while
Allegany County residents returned only 12%.
counties

are

high-risk

areas

for

indoor

Both of these
radon.

Among

returned surveys, radon measurements were completed about
37% of the time, ranging from a 47% completion rate for
Steuben County to 15% for Essex County.

About 76% of the

measurements were conducted in basements; and these data

are included below, in a comparison of the survey results
to estimates of radon potential based on surficial geology
correlations.
Basement measurement results, summarized in Figure 2,
were log-normally distributed, with a geometric mean of 3.4
pCi/L and a maximum of 72 pCi/L.
(48%)

the

basements

had

radon

Overall, nearly half

concentrations

>4

pCi/L.

About 17% of the basements had concentrations >10 pCi/L.
None

of

the

13

exceeded 2 pCi/L.

measurements

in

the

low-risk

Region

3

Living-area (i.e., non-basement) radon

concentrations for the participating homes had an overall
geometric mean of 2.1 pCi/L and a maximum of 17 pCi/L.
About 33% of the first-floor (and above) measurements were
>4 pCi/L, and 9% of the concentrations were >10 pCi/L.

2001 Home buyer measurements
For the 3-month study period (March 1- May 30, 2001),
a total of 5299 detector applications were mailed to buyers
of

single-family

homes

located

in

14

counties.

In

response, there were 713 applications for the free radon
detector, and 705 surveys were returned within the 2-month
deadline.

The return rates for the applications varied

from 10% for Jefferson and Ontario Counties, to 22% for
Genesee County.

Results of the mail-out and measurements

are included in Table 2.

Of the radon detectors mailed to

respondents who had mailed back the detector application,
only 372 detectors were properly exposed and mailed back
for measurement to the contracted laboratory.

Successful

completion of the measurements varied from 33% in Lewis
County to 72% in Jefferson County, and averaged 52%.

About

73% of the radon measurements were conducted in basements.
Results

of

the

271

basement

measurements,

shown

in

Figure 3, were log-normally distributed, with a geometric
mean of 2.2 pCi/L and a maximum of 25 pCi/L.
county-wide
from

1.1

geometric
pCi/L

for

mean

basement

low-risk

The average

measurements

counties

(Oswego

ranged
and

St.

Lawrence Counties) up to 5.7 pCi/L for high-risk Chemung
County.

Nearly 70% of the measurements in the latter were

>4 pCi/L.
1

were

conducted

Most (50 of 57) measurements in low-risk Region
<4
in

pCi/L,
Oswego

including
and

Lewis

all

of

the

Counties.

measurements
In

the

study

overall, 29% the basements had indoor radon concentrations
>4 pCi/L, and 5% had concentrations >10 pCi/L.
Results of the 101 living-area radon measurements were
also log-normally distributed, with a geometric mean of 0.7
pCi/L, but a larger maximum (42 pCi/L) than was observed
for

the

basement

measurements.

Average

county-wide

geometric-mean living-area concentrations ranged from 0.3

pCi/L for Ontario County to 2.8 pCi/L for high-risk Chemung
County.
homes

Orange County had the largest number (five) of
with

living

area

radon

concentrations

>4

pCi/L.

None of the 23 measurements in the four low-risk counties
of Region 1 was >4 pCi/L.
had

radon

Overall, 11% the living areas

concentrations

>4

pCi/L,

and

3%

had

concentrations >10 pCi/L.

Comparison of measurement results and radon-potential maps
The NYS Department of Health has estimated and mapped
radon concentrations for every town and city in the State
(4

,5).

Figure

4

provides

a

comparison

of

the

radon

potential estimated from nearly 44,000 measurements with
the

measurement

results

obtained

from

this

study.

The

available number of measurements was inadequate to allow
comparisons to the radon-risk maps on the township level;
therefore, county summaries are provided.

The correlation

coefficients (r2) of 0.68 and 0.52 for the basement and
living
the

area,

small

study.

respectively,

number

of

are

satisfactory,

measurements

obtained

considering

through

this

The existing identification of counties as having a

high (e.g., Chemung) or low (e.g., Oswego) potential for
indoor radon was supported by the measurement data from the
study.

Home buyer survey
The results of the 647 questionnaires returned by home
purchasers in 1999 are tabulated by county and region in
Table 2.

The number of questionnaires returned for Regions

1 through 4 were 118, 186, 80, and 263, respectively.

In

2001, 705 questionnaires were returned by home purchasers;
the results are included in Table 2.
the

number

Regions

1

of

questionnaires

through

respectively.

4

While

were
there

In the 2001 study,

returned
149,
were

by

143,
1360

homeowners
148,

and

in

273,

questionnaires

returned, not all respondents answered every question, and
not all questions were the same in both years.

Lastly, the

reader must bear in mind the bias inherent in surveys.
Since

home

buyers

who

live

in

an

area

of

high

radon

potential are likely to be more aware of radon and its
health risks (due to various outreach activities), they are
more likely to respond to the survey, thus biasing its
results.

In contrast, home buyers who live in a an area of

low radon potential are less likely to be familiar with
radon and its health risks (due to the lack of outreach
activities) and

may be more likely to discard the survey

as “junk mail”.

Below are the summary results for many of

the key questions used in the surveys.

Question:

Have

you

ever

heard

of

the

health

risk

associated with radon?
Overall, about 77% of respondents claimed to have heard of
radon

and

its

health

respondents

who

resided

Regions

in

were

risk.

The

familiar

1

and

2,

largest

with
both

percentage

radon’s
areas

of

of

health

risk

high

radon

potential.
Question: How have you heard about radon?
Radon

information

reached

the

home

from newspapers and radio/TV.
estate
less

agents

provided

frequently

the

(~15%

equally

(~22%)

Home inspectors and real-

buyer

each).

buyer

with

radon

Respondents

information
noted

that

doctors had rarely supplied any radon information.
Question: Do you believe that exposure to radon is
unhealthy?
An overwhelming majority (98%) of respondents understood
that exposure to radon should be minimized.

As mentioned

above, people who live in an area of high radon potential
are more likely to be familiar with radon health issues and
more likely to respond to the survey, thereby biasing the
results.
Question:

Was

any

radon

during the purchase of your home?

information

given

to

you

Radon information was provided to the home buyer about 44%
of the time.

On a regional scale, home buyers in Regions 2

and 4 were provided with radon information at about 60% of
sales.

Provision

of

radon

information

is

nearly

nonexistent in the low-risk counties of Region 3 (e.g.,
Clinton (3%), Essex (7%), and Franklin (5%)).
replies indicated that less than 25% of
Region

1,

comprising

of

high

radon

However,

the home buyers in

risk

counties,

were

provided with radon information.
Question:

Who

provided

you

with

the

radon

information?
It is important to determine who provides home buyers with
radon information, so that these groups can be targeting
for additional training.
who

did

receive

radon

Overall, among those home buyers
information

during

the

sale,

the

information was provided by home inspectors about 50% of
the time, and real-estate agents about 30% of the time.

In

Regions 1 and 3, real-estate agents often provided radon
information

to

the

contributing

little,

home
if

buyers,

any,

to

with
the

inspectors

dissemination.

However, for Region 4, inspectors were the primary source
(61% of the time) of the radon information to home buyers,
with real-estate agents contributing 22% of the time.
most

knowledgeable

group,

radon

contractors,

are

The

rarely

involved

in

the

initial

discussion

of

radon

with

the

prospective home buyers; such contractors provide the radon
information only 4% of the time.

In nearly every case in

which the seller provided radon information to the buyer,
the home had been measured prior to the sale.
Question:

What were you told about radon during the

sale?
As some home buyers may not be familiar with the topic of
radon, the information provided by the home professional
must be accurate and reliable.

According to the survey,

home buyers were told that i) the home should be tested
(34%),

ii) that radon is a health problem (19%) and

iii)

a radon contingency clause should be added to the contract
(15%).

These are all valid assertions.

However, 67 home

buyers were told that radon is not a problem or were told
not to worry about it, with most of these (65%) located in
the high-risk counties.

In three of the regions, 31-35% of

home buyers were advised to have their homes tested, while
none in low-risk Region 3 were advised to test.

Half of

the respondents were told that radon is not a problem in
Region 3, an

assertion which may be generally correct but

is not acceptable, considering that homes containing >20
pCi/L are located in these counties. Very few home buyers

were informed of the potential for the seller to tamper
with the test.
Question:

Has your house ever been tested for radon?

Of the 1333 responses to this question, 28% reported that
the home had a radon measurement, with most of these done
during the sale.

Over half of the buyers did not know

whether the home had been previously measured.

Many of the

home buyers (38-50%) in Broome, Dutchess, and Rensselaer
Counties had the homes tested for radon during the sale.
Only about 20% of homes in the two highest-risk counties
(Cortland and Steuben) were measured during the sale.

A

similar trend is evident in the regional breakdowns, with
39% of the homes in Regions 2 and 4 having been measured,
but only 2% of those in low-risk Region 3 and 12% of homes
in high-risk Region 1.

About 75% of the home buyers who

reported having received radon information also reported
that the home had a radon measurement during or prior to
the

sale.

This

implies

that

buyers

who

receive

radon

information are much more likely to conduct a measurement
as a stipulation of the sale.
Question:

When was the house tested?

The majority (83%) of radon tests were done during the sale
of the home, emphasizing both the need to provide radon
information to buyers early in the sale process, and the

role played by real-estate transactions in promoting radon
measurements.
(17%)

of

previous

In

tests

Dutchess

were

County,

conducted

ownership),

suggesting

a

significant

before
a

the

history

sale
of

number
(during

past

radon

measurements during real-estate transactions in this area.
Few respondents from Regions 1 and 3 reported that their
homes had ever been measured, demonstrating the lack of
radon

measurements

in

both

regions,

even

counties contain homes with >20 pCi/L.

though

the

Only a few home

buyers (4%) conducted radon measurements after the sale.
Question:
About

74%

of

Where was the radon measurement taken?
the

measurements

were

conducted

in

the

basements of homes, suggesting that it is often used as the
lowest habitable area of the home.

Most of the remaining

measurements were conducted on the first floor.

Only in

Columbia and Cattaraugus Counties were there more firstfloor

than

basement

measurements.

About

20

respondents

reported dual measurements, and two respondents reported
that multiple radon measurements had been conducted.
Question:
Home

Who did the radon measurement?

inspectors

measurements

of

conducted
these

about

homes.

70%
This

of

the

illustrates

radon
the

importance of training and certification of home inspectors
with respect to radon.

The most knowledgeable group, radon

contractors, provided about 15% of the measurements, and
home buyers conducted about 7% of the tests themselves.
Measurements by radon contractors were most prevalent (82%)
in Region 4, an area that is relatively well informed on
the

topic

of

indoor

radon.

Surprisingly,

real-estate

agents conducted very few (3%) of the measurements.
Question:

Was the radon measurement above 4 pCi/L?

Of the 359 replies to this question, 35% stated that the
measured radon concentration was above 4 pCi/L.

About 24%

of the respondents could not recall the measurement value.
Home buyers in Cortland, the highest radon-risk county in
the

State,

pCi/L.
this

reported

60%

of

measurement

results

above

4

It has been estimated (4,5) that 74% of homes in

County

have

radon

concentrations

>4

pCi/L

basement (39% above 4 pCi/L in the living area).

in

the

However,

home buyers in other high-risk counties, such as those in
Regions 1 and 4, reported that radon concentrations
>4 pCi/L about 31% of the time.

were

Region 2 had the greatest

proportion (41%) of homes reported to be above 4 pCi/L.

In

Region 3, <10% of the homes had a measurement conducted
during the 3-month period for both years.
Question:
measurement?

What

actions

resulted

from

this

radon

Nearly half of the respondents to this question stated that
they purchased a home with a radon concentration>4 pCi/L
without changing the price.

This attitude may indicate

ignorance of or apathy toward indoor radon, but it more
likely reflects a desire not to complicate or compromise
the home purchase.

About 19% of home buyers required the

seller to install a remediation system as a condition of
the

sale,

primarily

in

Region-4

counties.

About

18%

required a reduction in the home's price, presumably to
offset

the

cost

of

installation

of

a

radon

mitigation

system. Home buyers in Region 1 were likely to request a
price reduction, while 30% of buyers in highly populated
Region 4 required that a system be installed.
most

buyers

would

have

purchased

the

home

Overall,
regardless,

without requesting an alteration in price, indicating that
indoor radon plays a minor role in selection of a home.
Question:

Was a follow-up test conducted to confirm

the initial measurement?
The USEPA recommends a confirmatory measurement for results
>4 pCi/L, prior to initiation of remediation.
nearly

70%

of

the

buyers

with

initial

However,

indoor

radon

measurements above 4 pCi/L did not conduct a confirmatory
measurement.
measurement.

Thus,
The

lack

few
of

homes

had

follow-up

more

than

measurements

one

places

undue reliance on the initial measurement, especially in
high-risk counties, since remediation is contemplated based
on

a

single

measurement.

Residents

conducted

follow-up

measurements most often (67%) in Region 4, while those in
Region 1, another high-risk area, had reported only 13%
follow-up measurements.
Question: Who did the follow-up measurement?
Over

half

(~57%)

of

the

follow-up

conducted by radon contractors.

measurements

were

This is likely due to the

contractors’ involvement in home remediations following an
initial result >4 pCi/L.
the

follow-up

Home inspectors conducted 25% of

measurements,

and

real-estate

agents

conducted very few (~2%).
Question:

Was

the

follow-up

measurement

below

4

below

4

pCi/L?
Most

(61%)

pCi/L.

of

Given

the

follow-up

that

the

measurements

two

were

measurements

were

often

conducted by different individuals, on different dates, a
lack

of

Regions

agreement
2

measurements

and

4

below

of
had
4

the
60%

pCi/L,

results
and

81%

is

not

surprising.

of

the

follow-up

respectively.

No

follow-up

measurements were conducted in Region 3 during either study
year.

Question: Were actions taken to reduce levels in your
house?
Roughly half of the respondents reported taking some action
to

reduce

their

household

radon

concentration.

The

majority of these were in Broome and Rensselaer Counties.
Nearly half of the respondents in Dutchess County failed to
attempt to reduce indoor radon concentrations.
percentage

of

homes

that

received

no

The highest

remediation

action

were in Region-3 counties.
Question: What steps were taken to lower your exposure
to radon in your home?
This

question

provides

an

indication

of

the

number

mitigation systems installed during the home sales.

of
The

most prevalent (40%) action to reduce indoor radon levels
was

to

install

a

mitigation

system.

This

approach

was

followed by the less-effective methods of sealing cracks
(23%), opening windows (17%), and increasing ventilation
(9%).

Most of the remediation systems were installed in

Regions 2 and 4.

Among the 1333 responses, mitigation

systems were installed in 43 houses (3.2%).

Considering

that 111,700 existing single-family homes were sold

in NYS

in 2002 (excluding New York City) (6), it can be estimated
that

~3,600

conducted

radon

that

mitigations

year

as

a

(111,700
result

x
of

3.2%)

were

real-estate

transactions.

Sales in New York City were excluded due to

the large number of houses, the very low radon potential,
and the likelihood that very few mitigation systems are
installed there annually.
Question:

If radon levels in the home were higher

than recommended limits, what actions would you have taken?
Of the

1468 responses to this question, 43% of the home

buyers stated that they would require the seller to install
a remediation system, 22% would request a price reduction,
and 19% would have canceled the purchase.

Home buyers in

Chenango and Clinton Counties were most willing to cancel
the purchase due to elevated radon concentrations, while
those in Cattaraugus County were most likely to take no
action.

While similar trends are observed at the regional

level, only buyers in Region 3 were more likely to cancel
the purchase than to seek a reduced price.
buyers

would

have

purchased

the

home

A few (4%) home

regardless

of

the

indoor radon concentrations.
Question: Are you interested in having a free radon
measurement of your home?
An

overwhelming

97%

of

home

buyers

requested

a

radon

measurement, regardless of the previous measurement history
of

the

house.

As

described

above,

a

few

home

buyers,

primarily in Allegany and Broome Counties, were indifferent

to radon's health effects and did not want to measure or
re-measure their homes.

It is interesting to note that,

while very few homes in low-risk Region 3 were measured
during the sale, >95% of the respondents from this region
requested a radon measurement as part of our program.
buyers

from

the

higher-risk

areas

(Regions

2

declined the radon detector offer most often (8%).

Home

and

4)

About

40% of the detector requests came from Region 4.
Question:

What type of home did you purchase?

The majority of respondents (93%) purchased single-family
homes, although 7% were mobile homes, two-family, or other
residential building types.

The prevalence of mobile-home

purchases was highest in Regions 1 and 3, and none of the
buyers

of

mobile

homes

reportedly

measured

during

the

purchase.
Question: Which best describes your home?
Unfinished basements (35%) were more common than finished
construction (22%), although the latter implies that the
owners are likely to spend more time in the higher-radon
environment

of

the

basement.

Block

wall

construction,

which can serve as a conduit for radon migration into a
home, was more prevalent than poured foundation.

Crawl

spaces and slab-on-grade construction were reported for 10
and 7% of the homes, respectively.

Crawl spaces were more

common in Regions 1 and 3, and finished basements were more
common in Regions 2 and 4.
Question:

Have you ever conducted a radon measurement

in your previous residence(s)?
This

question

sought

information

regarding

radon awareness of the home buyer.
of

respondents

had

not

the

previous

A large majority (83%)

previously

conducted

a

radon

you

conducted

a

radon

measurement of their home.
Question:

Why

have

never

measurement in past residence(s)?
About 35% of respondents had previously rented a residence
and had not conducted a radon measurement.
respondents

were

not

aware

of

radon

and

Another 32% of
the

need

to

Surveys were returned by 1333 home buyers in NYS.

Of

measure.

CONCLUSIONS

the

330

home

buyers

who

reported

discussing

radon

information during the sale in 1999, 194 either conducted a
radon measurement or were provided results by the previous
owners.

Similarly,

251

home

buyers

reported

receiving

radon information during the sale in 2001, and most (174)
conducted

a

radon

measurement.

This

implies

that

many

prospective buyers, if informed and assisted, will conduct

radon testing of the house.
"getting

the

However,

radon

message

out"

measurements

Therefore, the importance of
cannot
and

be

overemphasized.

disclosure

nonexistent in the low-risk counties.

were

nearly

Home inspectors are

the primary providers of radon information to home buyers,
but they often have little formal instruction or experience
in matters regarding indoor radon.

About 30% of responding

home buyers had radon measurements done in the house either
prior to, during, or after the sale.
homes

with

initial

radon

levels

Of the 129 reports of

>4

pCi/L,

only

20

had

confirmatory results >4 pCi/L, and 43 (corresponding to ~3%
of

all

respondents)

had

mitigation

systems

installed

to

reduce elevated concentrations (27 others had plans to have
mitigation systems installed).
the

radon

detectors

was

While interest in receiving

evident

from

the

survey’s

high

response rates, the improper exposure and return of these
detectors

to

the

analytical

reduction

in

the

proportion

laboratory
of

resulted

measurements

that

in

a

were

valid.

Acknowledgements
paper

was

-

Although

partially

funded

the

work

described

by

the

U.S.

in

this

Environmental

Protection Agency as part of the State Indoor Radon Grants
(SIRG) Program, the contents do not necessarily reflect the

views of the Agency, and no official endorsement should be
inferred.

REFERENCES
1. National Research Council, Health Effects of Exposure to
Radon,

BEIR VI, National Academy Press, Washington DC,

1999.
2.

Kopera, A., “NJDEP Radon Section”,

http://www.nj.gov/dep/rpp/radon, 2004.
3. Wang, Y., Ju, C., Stark, A.D., Teresi, N., “Radon Mitigation
Survey Among New York State Residents Living in High Radon Homes”, Health
Physics, 77(4), 403, 1999.
4. Kitto, M.E., Kunz, C.O., Green, J.G., "Development and Distribution of Radon Risk
Maps in
New York State", J. Radioanal. Nucl. Chem., Articles, 249(1) , 153, 2001.
5. Kunz, C.; Kitto, M.; Schwenker, C.; Green, J.; Regilski,
E., "Identifying High-Risk Areas in New York State: Mapping
Indoor Radon Data", SIRG V Final Report, 1999.
6. New York State Office of Real Property Services, private
communication, 2003.
7. “Radon in New York State”, http://www.nyradon.org, 2004.
8. U.S. Census Bureau, http://www.census.gov, summary file 3, 2000.

FIGURE CAPTIONS

Figure 1.

Counties in four regions of NYS that were

targeted to examine differences in
real-estate disclosures by region.
Figure 2.

Distributions of basement and living-area radon concentrations in

homes measured in
1999 were
Figure 3.

log-normally distributed.

Distributions of basement and living-area radon concentrations in

homes measured in
2001 were log-normally distributed.
Figure 4.

Comparison of initial measurement results from this study with estimates

from
statewide mapping in NYS.

Table 1.

Counties in NYS targeted in the studies.
Radon potentiala

Year Region
housesb

Counties

1999
65,412

1

Allegany, Cattauragus, Steuben

50-66

2

Broome, Chenango, Cortland

36-74

3

Clinton, Essex, Franklin

91,869
9-15

45,817
4
150,563

Columbia, Rensselaer, Dutchess

41-46

No. of

2001
80,057

1

Genesee, Livingston, Ontario, Wyoming

33-48

2

Chemung, Schuyler, Tioga, Tompkins

35-71

3

Jefferson, Lewis, Oswego, Saint Lawrence

14-30

Orange, Putnam

33-35

75,064
97,960
4
126,894
a

Percentage of homes estimated to have basement radon
concentrations >4 pCi/L (7).
b
Detached houses occupied by 1-4 families (8).

Table 2. Summary of radon surveys sent to NYS home buyers.
1999
County
Surveys
Completed
name
Sent Rec’d
a
measurements
Region 1
Allegany
82
(72%)
Cattaraugus 183
(33%)
Steuben
238
(57%)
(51%)
Region 2
Broome
(67%)
Chenango
(49%)
Cortland
(38%)
(68%)
Region 3
Clinton
(52%)
Essex
(57%)
Franklin
(56%)

2002
Completed
measurementsa

County

Surveys

Name

Sent Rec’d

Jefferson

174

18

13

26

3

1

301

37

21

St. Lawrence 559

89

45

Genesee

158

33

22

Livingston

275

47

23

Ontario

404

39

15

Wyoming

156

22

15

10

4 (40%)

47

15 (35%)

Lewis

61

24 (47%)

Oswego

465

116

36 (35%)

127

26

9 (41%)

113

44

18 (39%)

127

34

11 (27%)

Chemung

245

29

15

97

27

4 (15%)

Schuyler

42

7

4

75

19

9 (47%)

Tioga

280

32

18

Tompkins

499

78

45

(58%)
Region 4
Columbia 177
(52%)
Dutchess 619
(47%)
Rensselaer 248

37

16 (52%)

Orange

1309

151

79

164

51 (34%)

Putnam

871

120

56

62

21 (39%)

Totals
(53%)
a
b

2551b

647

218 (37%)

5299

705

372

Percentage of completed measurements, based on number of detectors requested.
331 letters returned to sender due to delivery problems.