Editorial policy

Who writes and reviews this content

Pages are written and reviewed by the Radon Connect editorial team. We do not attach individual bylines, and we do not claim review by a named outside expert, because no such arrangement exists — publishing a fabricated reviewer credential would be precisely the kind of manufactured trust signal this policy prohibits.

The author of record in our structured data is therefore the organisation, not a person. If that changes — if we retain a credentialed reviewer under a named arrangement — we will say so here and the schema will change with it.

What "reviewed" means on our pages

A review date means the page was checked against the standards below on that date. It does not mean a licensed radon professional, physician, or attorney signed off on it. We think the specific, modest claim is more useful than a vague, impressive one.

The standards are published rather than internal, so the claim is auditable. If a page violates one of them, that is a defect you can point at.

• Material claims cite an approved authoritative source — EPA, a state health or environmental agency, a state programme, or the statute itself. Competitor content is never a source.
• Nothing is invented to fill a gap. No local statistics, contractor counts, customer reviews, case studies, or licensing claims are written unless verifiable. Where a number is unknown, the page says so.
• No guaranteed outcomes and no safety absolutes. No page promises a specific post-mitigation reading, a specific price, contractor availability, or that any result carries no risk.
• The platform stays inside what it actually does. We introduce homeowners to independent contractors. We do not test, inspect, install, or give medical, legal, or engineering advice.
• Limitations and exceptions are stated, not buried. Where practice varies by state, contract, or house, the page says which factors decide it.
• Changes are logged, not silently applied. A substantive change adds a dated entry describing what changed.

What we will not publish

Some categories are refused outright rather than handled carefully, because there is no version of them we could publish honestly.

We will not claim a home is safe because of its location or construction age. We will not attach a specific radon level to a city or neighbourhood without evidence for that specific claim. We will not present a national cost figure as applying to your house. We will not say a result below 4 pCi/L means zero risk. And we will not publish a testimonial, review, star rating, or case study, because we have no verifiable ones.

We also do not publish fabricated news. Our newsroom carries standing analysis rather than reported events, for a specific reason described on those pages: we cannot independently verify announcements from this environment, and publishing an unverified one would breach the second standard above.

How the commercial relationship is handled

Every page on this site carries a referral disclosure. We are paid by contractors for introductions, not by homeowners, and homeowners pay nothing to use the service. That disclosure appears site-wide rather than in a footer nobody reads, and its presence is verified automatically before each deployment.

The commercial incentive is to increase requests, and the editorial defence against it is the guaranteed-outcome and urgency rules above. Where content would be more persuasive if it were less accurate, accuracy wins — pages routinely tell homeowners that a result in the 2–4 band is a judgement call, that weather moves readings, and that a neighbour’s high result says nothing about their house.

Corrections

If a page is wrong, we correct it and log the correction with a date and a description of what changed. Corrections are not silently applied, because the update date on our pages is derived from that log — advancing a date without a corresponding logged change is not possible in our build.

To report an error, use the contact page. Tell us the page and the specific claim; that is enough.

The standards in full

Material claims cite an approved authoritative source

Health effects, action levels, testing protocol, device placement, mitigation standards, and disclosure requirements must trace to EPA, a state health or environmental agency, a state program, or the statute itself. Competitor content is never a source.

Nothing is invented to fill a gap

No local statistics, contractor counts, customer reviews, case studies, quotes, permit requirements, or licensing claims are written unless they are verifiable. Where a number is unknown, the page says so instead of estimating one.

No guaranteed outcomes and no safety absolutes

No page promises a specific post-mitigation reading, a specific price, contractor availability, or that any result carries no risk. EPA recommends action at 4 pCi/L and considering action between 2 and 4; that framing is used as written.

The platform stays inside what it actually does

Radon Connect introduces homeowners to independent contractors. It does not test, inspect, install, or provide medical, legal, or engineering advice, and no page may imply otherwise.

Limitations and exceptions are stated, not buried

Where practice varies by state, by contract, or by house, the page says which factors decide it rather than presenting one path as universal.

Changes are logged, not silently applied

A substantive change to a page adds a dated entry describing what changed. The displayed update date is derived from that log, so it cannot be advanced without a corresponding change.