state + local

If a perspective buyer for a home wants it tested for radon, then let them negotiate that as part of the sales agreement. Requiring it will simply mean even more paperwork for everyone and additional expense and hassle in selling a home. Radon occurs naturally and its presence is normal. It isn't a sign of something being wrong with the house, unlike, say, excess mold and mildew. It's part of the background in which we all live. Let those who are concerned about it check it out and, if it is important to them and they choose to undertake the expense or mitigation let that be an individual owners choice rather than something virtually forced upon buyer or seller by mandatory testing and disclosures.

"[radon] isn't a sign of something being wrong with the house, unlike, say, excess mold and mildew." - I'm not sure that's entirely accurate. At least for newer construction, since people have become more aware of the issue, a house should be built using techniques to mitigate & minimize radon in the first place. In the same way you'd build a house to make sure you don't have unwanted moisture infiltration, you should build a house which doesn't have unwanted radon gas. Both may be normal, but you don't want either one trapped in your home.

Moisture infiltration can cause structural damage. Radon, a naturally occurring part of the environment, doesn't and can't cause such damage. Further, I suspect that newer construction, with the degree we inhibit homes from breathing naturally (one of the reasons homes also have mold and mildew problems), might actually be making it more likely to have higher levels of radon in a home. Leave this to the home owner or purchaser to decide based on their own level of concern and comfort rather than forcing the issue on a frankly overblown, natural occurring phenomenon.

The fact that this question is even being asked is evidence of what a screwed up amoral society we've become. "Let the buyer beware" seems to be the new catchall, even in matters of life and death. Unbelievable.

"She didn’t smoke, and the home she lived in for more than a decade later tested with high levels of radon." O.k., but as we all know correlation does not imply causation. She may have been exposed to asbestos sometime in the past.

If the buyer is concerned, they can ask for a test, or pay for one themselves...it's not that expensive in the context of a home purchase. The cost of mitigation isn't that bad either....I did it in a house I sold 20 years ago, and did it again in the house I bought last year....and the cost hadn't changed all that much.

Although not explicitly stated, I'll bet the pro and cons break down once again to political groups. I wonder which side is which? (Heh.)

A test should be SOP for any home put on the market and results disclosed for any potential home buyer...period.

Aren't there other things that need to be inspected as part of Truth in Lending when a house goes up for sale?

Let's talk ranges here. The outside air is on average at .4pCi/L (picocurries per liter). The EPA recommends indoor air be below 4pCi/L even though many European countries recommend < 2pCi/L. Some homes tested have had levels above 1000pCi/L. With awareness of radon risk at such a low level we need to do more. Buyer beware is not the answer.