We live in a house made of lightweight concrete, built in 1950. From what I've heard, the concrete manufactured here might emit radon gas. (According to someone, Lomma is the Mecca of radon concrete). Upon measurement, no elevated levels were detected at all, so one cannot assume anything without conducting a measurement first.
What is shown in the picture is part of the load-bearing structure, a Ytong block that is probably about 20 cm deep. These were used for load-bearing walls and not just for room division. For room division, they used narrower Ytong or Siporex planks. (White lightweight concrete)solo_innova said:
Does your stud wall have the same load-bearing capacity as the Ytong did?
Hi, I found this through a search on Google and don't understand the following: If 1.2 is harmless, then why have they set a limit at 0.3 for new buildings, could it be politics and a cost issue for the state?klaskarlsson said:Now you're creating expressen headlines jon
Dangerous isn't exactly the word:
"Someone who is on average exposed to gamma radiation of 0.20 microsieverts per hour over an entire year receives a radiation dose of 1 millisievert. Someone who spends 80 percent of the year in a room with 1.2 microsieverts per hour therefore receives a radiation dose of 5 millisieverts. The risk at this dose is so low that the responsible authorities, when the issue of gamma radiation in blue concrete houses was prepared in the Radon investigation in 1979, found no reason for restrictions for residents. However, to prevent new buildings from being constructed with materials with high gamma radiation, the authorities have determined that the limit for the maximum permissible gamma radiation in new buildings in rooms where people stay more than temporarily should be 0.3 microsieverts per hour (Boverkets Byggregler BFS 2006:12, BBR 12"
Completely harmless is rather the word, but if you're still worried, you can remove it as much as possible
/K
Self-builder
· Stockholm
· 8 605 posts
It's likely for the same reasons that we sometimes use over-dimensioning, discourage certain types of substances in food (which are well below limit values, etc.).Egnahemsägare said:
Limit values are set to have a level where research so far considers something to be harmless.
In Sweden, we always want to be the best, so a little lower is always good, even if it becomes costly
In this particular case, the reason is mentioned in the excerpt above:
"However, to prevent new buildings from being constructed with materials that have high gamma radiation, authorities have decided that the limit for the highest permissible gamma radiation in new buildings in rooms where people spend more than temporary time shall be 0.3 microsieverts per hour."
This is so that builders will avoid materials with high gamma radiation, so a lower limit has been set - one can imagine, for instance, that even if something is at, say, 1.0 myS/h, parts of the material might have more radiation, so it's better to set a lower value so that the material (read blåbetong?
is not used at all/K
It smells like politics
Trollpolitik, more in other threads