Hacker News Reader

Comment by zamadatix | Hacker News Reader

I guess that depends how old you are when you install it and how long you plan to live but ~$7 per month is not at all an unrealistic electricity usage estimate for the system. 7*12*35 = $2,940.

Edit: E.g. the numbers from this site suggest, for 15 out of the 16 listed fan models, the lifetime electricity cost is likely to be significantly larger than the install cost unless you are already much older at the time you start using the system or you have extremely cheap electricity (or both) https://www.radonaway.com/radon-fan-operating-cost-calculato...

View on HN

This point always amuses me. Thats like, 1 starbucks coffee a month, or 1 trip to a fast food place a month, or one extra thing at the grocery store a month, or half a movie ticket a month, or half a streaming service a month, or less than half an LLM subscription a month, I could go on for a while.

For the cost, preventing cancer seems like it's a wise investment. I say this as a cancer survivor.

But it doesn’t prevent cancer. It lowers the risk of a specific kind of cancer by some amount. Is it $650 worth? That’s what I’m stuck on. People just go by vibe and say things like “it’s a good investment” but that’s just coming from I don’t know where.

How much does it really have to prevent one of the most painful and expensive forms of cancer, not just for you but also your family, to justify $7/mo? Not very much, in my book.

Same comment as the one above. There are literally infinite things you can do to reduce your risk of mortality. This would have to be among the best options if those things.

If you have a radon test indicating there's a problem, then it is no longer theoretical. There aren't an infinite number of pressing and known risks.

I think it's a mistake to conflate an infinite number of hypothetical risks with a definite and known risk. It leads to analysis paralysis and FUD. It is not possible to know what, among all of the infinite hypothetical options, is the best to reduce your mortality. So let's focus on the concrete steps we can take and that we do know are effective.

For most people, that is not radon mitigation, because most people don't have a radon problem. If you find out that it is a problem for you, and you have the cash to solve it - just solve it. It's that simple.

I'm just saying, I'm happy to pay for our system at the cost of seven whole dollars in energy cost per month, for my spouse and kids if nothing else.

If in 20 years I find out I got ripped off, I won't really be upset about it.

It’s a risk/reward. For a nominal cost, you essentially eliminate a gas that causes or accelerates lung cancer.

Enjoy one free beer a month, dude. Chances are you won’t develop a vicious cancer.

While your technically correct, you're practically wrong.

Literally, the CDC only mentions two primary sources of lung cancer: smoking and radon. Unless you have an unusual, alternative risk factor, it's practically correct to say eliminating smoking and radon prevent lung cancer.

How I look it is, if I’m aware of the risk and do nothing to mitigate it and then down the road one of my kids who sleeps in the basement develops cancer…

Aren’t we all doing this all the time?

We pay to live further from the toxic waste dump, the motorway or the pylons. We want filtered water. We want clean air. We pay to have nicer, less risky things.

Some locales in the US require testing for radon then mitigating during any home sale. These regulations somewhat change the marginal cost/benefit analysis because the money must be spent eventually.

If you own a home in such a locale, you might as well do any mitigation while living in the house. Otherwise you're not getting any cancer risk reduction for your dollars but you'll still pay those same dollars for the mitigation when you sell the house.

It amuses me but maybe for the exact opposite reason: Phrase it to the median person as "for just a quarter per day" (queue sad music on a commercial) and we'll be worried about everything but the cost because it seems too low to think about. Say "For just 1 of less than 500 such choices you can afford to make in your lifetime" and suddenly we start wondering if it's something that makes the cut.

Of course that's median, most people on HN... probably should just get the system if the Radon levels are high.

I read this 3 times, I have no idea what point you’re trying to make here.

The present value of $7 in 35 years is $1.45, assuming a risk free rate of 4.5%. Paying $2940 over 35 years is much more affordable than paying $2940 up front. If the goal is to be rational about risk, let's right-size the numbers. Otherwise our figures will be misleading.

You're not going to spend a fixed price over time. You're going to consume a fixed amount of energy and pay an increasing rate as the dollar inflates.

Ideally we'd model all relevant parameters, my main point is that presenting the cost as $2940 is misleading.

And their point was that it’s not. The price of electricity typically grows to offset inflation.

The time value of money is typically a more significant factor than inflation. If you believe that there will be massive inflation that outstrips the time value of money, then you should still feel this figure is misleading because it's too low.

I agree it's best to consider the capex/opex separately but I strongly disagree taking this approach will right-size the number. Here you're taking lifetime opex in nominal dollars but still devaluing it based on inflation anyways, which will not give you a meaningful result.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com