Health Risks Of Radon Research Articles

Bulgarian public opinion survey for risk perception including radon and suggestions for communication

The paper reviews and analyses the results of STEAM survey of the Bulgarian population. A Survey and the preparation of a questionnaire were initiated within the framework of the IAEA Project RER9153 “Enhancing the Regional Capacity to Control Long-Term Risks to the Public due to radon in Dwellings and Workplaces”. The survey includes 1003 respondents from the Bulgarian adult population 18+. The main conclusions are:The health of the Bulgarian people is mostly assessed as satisfactory (38.7%) and all respondent considers a person's health better than the people's health as a whole. The main risk factors that can affect the health of Bulgarians are: Stress; Unhealthy nutrition; Smoking; Polluted air/dust; Health system - difficult access, improper treatment; Economic situation - low income; Alcohol; Lack of physical activity. Risks such as Environment; Working place and Lifestyle (harmful habits) are below 10%. The general awareness of radon and associated risks with it is very low among the Bulgarian adult population: 78% know nothing or very little about the health risks of radon. Almost half of the population doesn't know if home radon testing is a priority for them. About 30% of Bulgarians think that there is no point in testing the home they live in since they always maintain good ventilation. The population does not recognize the National Radiation Protection and Public Health Authorities as a trusted source of health risk information. The internet and social media are the main sources of information regarding health risks. The most important result that should be taken into account when building a new communication strategy is the fact that nearly 40% of the respondents declare that they are informed about health risks by general practitioners (GP), and the trust in them is over 50%.

Residents' perception and worldview about radon control policy in Canada: A pro-equity social justice lens.

Radon is a potent indoor air pollutant, especially in radon prone areas and in countries with long winters. As the second top lung carcinogen, radon is disproportionately affecting certain population subgroups. While many provinces have taken sporadic actions, the equity issue has remained unaddressed across all policy measures. Attempts to enforce radon guidelines and enact building regulations without considering residents' views have proved ineffective. Research linking residents' radon risk perception and worldviews regarding radon control policy is lacking in Canada. We applied mixed (quantitative and qualitative) methods in a pro-equity social justice lens to examine the variations in residents' risk perception, access to risk communication messages, and worldviews about risk management across the sociodemographic strata. Triangulation of the quantitative and qualitative findings strengthened the evidence base to identify challenges and potential solutions in addressing the health risk through upstream policy actions. Enacting radon control policy requires actions from all levels of governments and relevant stakeholders to ensure equal opportunities for all residents to take the preventive and adaptive measures. Small sample size limited the scope of findings for generalization. Future studies can examine the differential impacts of radon health risk as are determined by various sociodemographic variables in a representative national cohort.

The efficacy of public health information for encouraging radon gas awareness and testing varies by audience age, sex and profession

Radioactive radon inhalation is a leading cause of lung cancer and underlies an ongoing public health crisis. Radon exposure prevention strategies typically begin by informing populations about health effects, and their initial efficacy is measured by how well and how fast information convinces individuals to test properties. This communication process is rarely individualized, and there is little understanding if messages impact diverse demographics equally. Here, we explored how 2,390 people interested in radon testing differed in their reaction to radon's public health information and their subsequent decision to test. Only 20% were prompted to radon test after 1 encounter with awareness information, while 65% required 2–5 encounters over several months, and 15% needed 6 to > 10 encounters over many years. People who most delayed testing were more likely to be men or involved in engineering, architecture, real estate and/or physical science-related professions. Social pressures were not a major factor influencing radon testing. People who were the least worried about radon health risks were older and/or men, while negative emotional responses to awareness information were reported more by younger people, women and/or parents. This highlights the importance of developing targeted demographic messaging to create effective radon exposure prevention strategies.

A Mixed Methods Population Health Approach to Explore Radon-Induced Lung Cancer Risk Perception in Canada.

BackgroundRadon is a predominant indoor air pollutant and second leading cause of lung cancer in radon-prone areas. Despite the gravity of the health risk, residents in Canada have inadequate perception and taken minimal protective actions. Better perception of a risk motivates people to take preventive measures. Scholarship about radon health risk perception is lacking in Canada. We applied a mixed methods population health approach to explore the determinants shaping perception and actions of a resident population in Canada.MethodsWe conducted mixed surveys (n = 557) and qualitative bilingual interviews (n = 35) with both homeowners and tenants of Ottawa–Gatineau areas. The study explored residents' risk perception and adaptations factors. Descriptive, correlational and regression analyses described and established associations between quantitative variables. Thematic, inductive analyses identified themes in the qualitative data. A mixed methods analysis triangulated both results to draw a holistic perception of the health risk.ResultsResidents’ quantitative perceptions of radon health risk, smoking at home, synergistic risk perception, social influence and care for family were associated significantly with their intention to test for radon levels in their home, actual testing and mitigation. These results were explained further with the qualitative findings. Residents who had dual cognitive and emotional awareness of the risk were motivated enough to take preventive actions. Caring for family, knowing others who contracted lung cancer and financial capability were enablers, whereas lack of awareness and homeownership, cost of mitigation and stigma were obstacles to preventive actions. We also explored the dual subjective and objective aspects of risk perception that are influenced by micro- and macro-level determinants.ConclusionsInducing protective action to reduce risk requires comprehensive population-level interventions considering dual perceptions of the risk that can modify the risk determinants. Future research can explore the dual aspects of risk perception and unequal distribution of the risk factors.

Determination of radon levels in dwellings and social objects and evaluation annual effective dose from inhalation of radon in Stepnogorsk area Northern Kazakhstan

Radon is a noble gas that is one of the natural radioactive decay products of radium resulting from the disintegration of uranium. Humans are exposed to sources of natural radiation activity, being radon and its progeny breathing air responsible for more than 50% of the annual dose received from natural radiation. The aim of this study was to determine the radon concentration in the air in settlements’ dwellings and social objects and calculate the annual effective dose of population from radon on the territory mining activities in Stepnogorsk area. The study has shown that activity concentrations of indoor radon in the buildings ranged from 8 to 870 Bq · m−3 in Aqsu, 3-540 Bq · m−3 in Kvartsitka located close to former gold mining sites. The Einh corresponding to the activity concentrations ranged from 1-27 mSv · y−1 received by the settlements’ public. The highest value of Einh in Aqsu School reaches up to 68 mSv · y−1 received by the critical group of public was found at the territory of former mining the Stepnogorsk area. The results of this study show significant radiation hazards in Aqsu School which located at the territory of former mining site, and there is evidence of radon health risk to the members of the public.

Radon risk perception and barriers for residential radon testing in Southwestern Nigeria

ObjectivesThe seriousness and long-term health effects of radon exposure are often underestimated due to inaccurate perceptions of radon risk. The aim of this study was to assess radon risk perception and barriers for residential radon levels testing among Obafemi Awolowo University faculty. Study designA quantitative cross-sectional design was used for this study. MethodsLecturers’ residents of the Obafemi Awolowo University participated in the study. A semi-structured questionnaire was administered to 296 residents to assess their knowledge about radon and determine their perceived susceptibility to radon health risks. Data were analysed and summarised using descriptive and inferential statistics. ResultsThe respondents’ mean age was 43 ​± ​8.5 years and 71% were male. The study revealed that awareness of radon was low (46%), while 61% of respondents had poor knowledge. Only a fifth (19.5%) of the respondents had a high perceived risk of radon, and 70% were not aware of measures to detect radon in their respective homes. A majority (74%) of the respondents reported not knowing where to get a radon testing kit as a barrier to radon testing. Professional background (p ​< ​0.001), academic qualification (p ​< ​0.05) and designation/cadre (p ​< ​0.001) were the major determinants of radon knowledge among residents. Moreover, religion and profession were statistically significantly related to the perception of residents about radon risk (p ​< ​0.05). ConclusionDespite having a high level of education, knowledge/awareness about radon health risks is low in the Obafemi Awolowo University faculty members; furthermore, lack of knowledge about house testing supplies are a significant barrier to residential testing.

Residents\u2019 perceptions of radon health risks: a qualitative study

BackgroundRadon is a high impact environmental pollutant and is the second leading cause of lung cancer in Canada. Building design, extended winter, and geographical location expose residents of Ottawa-Gatineau (the national capital region in Canada) to an increased risk. It is surprising that residents have an inadequate awareness of the risk - despite its gravity - and have taken minimum preventive actions. This study explores perceptions of radon health risk and examines the factors that enable and hinder the adoption of preventive measures among Ottawa-Gatineau residents.MethodsWe conducted semi-structured interviews with 35 residents with varying educational and income levels to inquire about their knowledge and perception of radon, and to explore their views of enablers and obstacles to taking action to reduce radon risks. Thematic, inductive data analysis was undertaken.ResultsThe results indicate that: 1) Residents obtained information on radon from various sources that include the media, their education or occupation, their social network, and home renovation events. Limited references were made to the National Radon Program responsible for testing for radon and informing residents. 2) Awareness of radon risk varied, and the knowledge retained by some residents is insufficient to adequately protect their health. 3) Enablers for taking protective action included: having an understanding of the risk along with health consciousness; caring for family and children; knowing others who had contracted lung cancer and having financial resources. Obstacles consisted of: lack of awareness; cost; lack of home ownership; and potential difficulty in selling the house. 4) Residents attributed primary responsibility to public agencies for disseminating information, and incentivizing or mandating action through more stringent regulation.ConclusionRisk perceptions are subjective, and are influenced by micro and macro level factors. Inducing protective action to reduce risk requires comprehensive interventions taking into account the dual cognitive and emotional aspects of risk perception. Future research may explore the dual aspects of risk perception and examine the contents of the risk communication message. Policy should address the responsibility of both governments and residents in tackling the issue.

Radon, an invisible killer in Canadian homes: perceptions of Ottawa-Gatineau residents.

Canadians have reason to care about indoor air quality as they spend over 90% of the time indoors. Although indoor radon causes more deaths than any other environmental hazard, only55% of Canadians have heard of it, and of these,6% have taken action. The gap between residents' risk awareness and adoption of actual protective behaviour presents a challenge to public health practitioners. Residents' perception of the risk should inform health communication that targets motivation for action. In Canada, research about the public perception of radon health risk is lacking. The aim of this study was to describe residents' perceptions of radon health risks and, applying a theoretical lens, evaluate how perceptions correlate with protection behaviours. We conducted a mixed online and face-to-face survey (N = 557) with both homeowners and tenants in Ottawa-Gatineau census metropolitan area. Descriptive, correlation, and regression analyses addressed the research questions. Compared to the gravity of the risk, public perception remained low. While 32% of residents expressed some concern about radon health risk, 12% of them tested and only 3% mitigated their homes for radon. Residents' perceptions of the probability and severity of the risk, social influence, care for children, and smoking in home correlated significantly with their intention to test; these factors also predicted their behaviours for testing and mitigation. Health risk communication programs need to consider the affective aspects of risk perception in addition to rational cognition to improve protection behaviours. A qualitative study can explore the reasons behind the gap between testing and mitigation.

A Mixed Methods Approach to Radon Health Risk Perception of Ottawa Residents

A Mixed Methods Approach to Radon Health Risk Perception of Ottawa Residents

Software Tool for Work and Occupational Radon Health Risk Modeling

Software Tool for Work and Occupational Radon Health Risk Modeling

An Interdisciplinary Population Health Approach to Radon Health Risk Management in Canada

Radon is a known carcinogen found in indoor air that exists at higher than the federal reference level (200 Bq/m3) in about 10% of Canadian homes. Every year, over 3,000 people die from radon-induced lung cancer, which accounts for 16% of annual lung cancer deaths in Canada. Radon is the leading cause of lung cancer deaths among non-smokers and is second among smokers. Children, women, and smokers from lower income groups are disproportionately affected. Although the Federal Government has reset the guideline (from the previous 600 Bq/m3 down to 200 Bq/m3) and provincial governments revised the building codes to limit exposure, there remain controversies with the latest scientific development in adopting strategies of radon management in Canada.&#x0D; This review applies an Integrated Population Health Framework to look at the relationships and interactions between population health determinants such as biology and genetics, environment and occupation, and social and economic factors, that influence the health risk of radon. The evidence gathered supports policy analysis with the application of ethical and risk management principles that lead to the identification of efficient and affordable broad-based and population-level preventive strategies. The final inferences enhance the framework by adding critical intervention modalities to Health Canada’s National Radon Program.

Quantitative Health Risk Assessment of Indoor Radon: A Systematic Review.

Exposure to radon is a well-established cause of lung cancer in the general population. The aim of the present work is to identify and summarize the results of studies that have assessed the risk of lung cancer due to indoor radon, based on a systematic review of relevant published studies. Sixteen studies from 12 different countries met eligibility criteria. Large differences in radon concentrations were noted between and within individual countries, and variety of risk models used to estimate the attributable fraction. Calculating again the attributable fraction in each of these studies using the same model (coefficient of 16% per 100 becquerels per cubic meter (Bq/m3) derived from the European residential radon study), the new attributable fraction of these selected studies ranged from 3% to 17%. Radon remains a public health concern. Information about radon health risks is important and efforts are needed to decrease the associated health problems.

Risks of Lung Cancer due to Radon Exposure among the Regions of Korea.

Radon is likely the second most common cause of lung cancer after smoking. We estimated the lung cancer risk due to radon using common risk models. Based on national radon survey data, we estimated the population-attributable fraction (PAF) and the number of lung cancer deaths attributable to radon. The exposure-age duration (EAD) and exposure-age concentration (EAC) models were used. The regional average indoor radon concentration was 37.5 95 Bq/m(3). The PAF for lung cancer was 8.3% (European Pooling Study model), 13.5% in males and 20.4% in females by EAD model, and 19.5% in males and 28.2% in females by EAC model. Due to differences in smoking by gender, the PAF of radon-induced lung cancer deaths was higher in females. In the Republic of Korea, the risk of radon is not widely recognized. Thus, information about radon health risks is important and efforts are needed to decrease the associated health problems.

Construction a process to measurement the indoor radon concentration

Radon is a naturally radioactive gas , but it causes lung cancer to humans. The risk of lung cancer due to radiation depends on the amount of radon inhalation and radon exposure time. In Vietnam, radon concentrations are usually determined by RAD7, however RAD7 just showed the immediate values of radon, and have to regularly calibrate it. The construction process to determine the accumulates indoor radon concentration by detector CR- 39 in order to be widely used in the study of environmental pollution, especially the study of health risks of radon for humans and mapping radon pollution.&#x0D; Detector CR - 39 is placed in a 7 cm - plastic holder, and in exposure time, the holders were covered with glass fiber filter paper ∅ 47mm on the bottom of the detector to avoid the exposure of dust. Then it is hung in the indoor location as Vietnam Standard 7889:2008. After 3 months, holders are returned to a laboratory, and CR - 39 will be soaked in 6M NaOH at 700C. Indoor radon concentrations will be proportional to the density traces obtained on CR-39.&#x0D; The study uses an radium 226 source of the NIST (National Institute for Standards and Technology) with the released radon coefficient : f = 0.891 ± 0.015. Results show the calibration factor K is 4.533 ± 0.218 [(Bq.m-3. day)]/(tracks / CR-39)]. Using K factor, we can determine the cumulative indoor radon concentration.

The cost effectiveness of radon reduction programmes in domestic housing in England and Wales: The impact of improved radon mapping and housing trends

In the UK, excessive levels of radon gas have been detected in domestic housing. Areas where 1% of existing homes were found to be over the Action Level of 200Bq·m−3 were declared to be Radon Affected Areas. Building Regulations have been introduced which require that, for areas where between 3% and 10% of existing houses are above the Action Level, new homes should be built with basic radon protection using a membrane, and that, where 10% or more of existing homes exceed this level, new homes should be built with full radon protection.Initially these affected areas followed administrative boundaries, known as Counties. However, with increasing numbers of measurements of radon levels in domestic homes recorded in the national database, these areas have been successively refined into smaller units – 5km grid squares in 1999, down to 1km grid squares in 2007.One result is the identification of small areas with raised radon levels within regions where previously no problem had been identified. In addition, some parts of areas that were previously considered radon affected are now considered low, or no, risk. Our analysis suggests that the net result of improved mapping is to increase the number of affected houses. Further, the process is more complex for local builders, and inspectors, who need to work out whether radon protection in new homes is appropriate.Our group has assessed the cost-effectiveness of radon remediation programmes, and has applied this analysis to consider the cost-effectiveness of providing radon protection in both new and existing homes. This includes modelling the potential failure rate of membranes, and whether testing radon levels in new homes is appropriate. The analysis concludes that it is more cost effective to provide targeted radon protection in high radon areas, although this introduces more complexity.The paper also considers the trend in housing to a greater proportion of apartments, the regional variations in types of housing and the decreasing average number of occupants in each dwelling, and concludes that data and methods are now available to respond to the health risks of radon at a local level, in keeping with a general initiative to prioritise responses to health and social welfare issues at a more local level.

Assessment and Management of Residential Radon Health Risks: A Report from the Health Canada Radon Workshop

Epidemiologic studies of uranium miners and other underground miners have consistently shown miners exposed to high levels of radon to be at increased risk of lung cancer. More recently, concern has arisen about lung cancer risks among people exposed to lower levels of radon in homes. The current Canadian guideline for residential radon exposure was set in 1988 at 800 Bq/m3. Because of the accumulation of a considerable body of new scientific evidence on radon lung cancer risks since that time, Health Canada sponsored a workshop to review the current state-of-the-science on radon health risks. The specific objectives of the workshop were (1) to collect and assess scientific information relevant to setting national radon policy in Canada, and (2) to gather information on social, political, and operational considerations in setting national policy. The workshop, held on 3–4 March 2004, was attended by 38 invited scientists, regulators, and other stakeholders from Canada and the United States. The presentations on the first day dealt primarily with scientific issues. The combined analysis of North American residential radon and lung cancer studies was reviewed. The analysis confirmed a small but detectable increase in lung cancer risk at residential exposure levels. Current estimates suggest that radon in homes is responsible for approximately 10% of all lung cancer deaths in Canada, making radon the second leading cause of lung cancer after tobacco smoking. This was followed by a perspective from an UNSCEAR (United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation) working group on radon. There were two presentations on occupational exposures to radon and two presentations considered the possibility of radon as a causative factor for cardiovascular disease and for cancer in other organs besides the lung. The possible contribution of environmental tobacco smoke to lung cancers in nonsmokers was also considered. Areas for future research were identified. The second day was devoted to policy and operational issues. The presentations began with a perspective from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, followed by a history of radon policy development in Canada. Subsequent presentations dealt with the cost-effectiveness of radon mitigation, Canadian building codes and radon, and a summary of radon standards from around the world. Provincial representatives and a private consultant were given opportunities to present their viewpoints. A number of strategies for reducing residential radon exposure in Canada were recognized, including testing and mitigation of existing homes (on either a widespread or targeted basis) and changing the building code to require that radon mitigation devices be installed at the time a new home is constructed. The various elements of a comprehensive national radon policy were set forth. This workshop was sponsored by the Radiation Protection Bureau of Health Canada, and was held in collaboration with the McLaughlin Centre for Population Health Risk Assessment at the University of Ottawa. We are grateful to Anar Baweja, Barry Hauck, Sonia Johnson, Ed Korpach, and Trevor Stocki for support in organizing and carrying out the workshop. Jack Cornett, Director of the Radiation Protection Bureau, is thanked for his support and encouragement to the workshop. Most of all, we thank all those who attended the workshop and shared their views.

Residential Radon in Canada: An Uncertainty Analysis of Population and Individual Lung Cancer Risk

Following a comprehensive evaluation of the health risks of radon, the U.S. National Research Council (US-NRC) concluded that the radon inside the homes of U.S. residents is an important cause of lung cancer. To assess lung cancer risks associated with radon exposure in Canadian homes, we apply the new (US-NRC) techniques, tailoring assumptions to the Canadian context. A two-dimensional uncertainty analysis is used to provide both population-based (population attributable risk, PAR; excess lifetime risk ratio, ELRR; and life-years lost, LYL) and individual-based (ELRR and LYL) estimates. Our primary results obtained for the Canadian population reveal mean estimates for ELRR, PAR, and LYL are 0.08, 8%, and 0.10 years, respectively. Results are also available and stratified by smoking status (ever versus never). Conveniently, the three indices (ELRR, PAR, and LYL) reveal similar output uncertainty (geometric standard deviation, GSD approximately 1.3), and in the case of ELRR and LYL, comparable variability and uncertainty combined (GSD approximately 4.2). Simplifying relationships are identified between ELRR, LYL, PAR, and the age-specific excess rate ratio (ERR), which suggest a way to scale results from one population to another. This insight is applied in scaling our baseline results to obtain gender-specific estimates, as well as in simplifying and illuminating sensitivity analysis.

Radon mitigation survey among New York State residents living in high radon homes.

Residential exposure to radon has been considered an important environmental risk factor for lung cancer. Since 1986, U.S. EPA has recommended that all dwellings below the third floor be tested for the presence of radon and be mitigated to reduce indoor radon in homes with levels exceeding 148 Bq m(-3). In order to evaluate the effectiveness of New York State Department of Health's efforts to increase public awareness about radon risk and to promote radon testing and mitigation in compliance with EPA's guideline, a statewide radon mitigation survey was conducted between September 1995 and January 1996 among New York State residents whose homes had radon levels equal to or greater than 148 Bq m(-3) on the first floor (or above) living areas. The survey found that about 60% of 1,113 participants had taken actions for radon mitigation. The percentage of respondents who took actions to reduce radon levels in their homes increased with increasing education level as well as household income level. The method of installing a powered system to provide more ventilation was a more effective mitigation method than opening widows/doors or sealing cracks/openings in the basement. Mitigation performed by contractors was more effective in reducing radon levels than mitigation performed by residents. The reasons for performing radon mitigation given by the majority of respondents were those strongly related to radon health risk. High home radon level was an important motivational factor to stimulate radon mitigation. On the other hand, the cost of radon mitigation was a major barrier in decision making for performing radon mitigation and for selecting mitigation measures. Thus, public educational campaigns that focus on increasing awareness and knowledge about radon health risks and development of less expensive radon mitigation methods may help in promoting radon mitigation.

Radon testing behavior in a sample of individuals with high home radon screening measurements.

Although radon exposure has been identified as the second leading cause of lung cancer, fewer than 6% of U.S. homeowners test their homes for radon. This report examines participants' follow-up radon testing behavior subsequent to receiving an initial screening radon level greater than 20 pCi/L. Sixty-two participants in the Iowa State-Wide Rural Radon Screening Survey who had radon screening measurements over 20 pCi/L were questioned by phone survey 3 months after receipt of their radon screening result to assess: whether participants were aware of radon's health risk; if participants recalled the radon screening results; how participants perceived the relative health risk of radon and whether participants planned follow-up radon testing. Only 19% of the respondents specifically identified lung cancer as the possible adverse health outcome of high radon exposure, and the majority of participants underestimated the health risks high radon levels pose when compared to cigarettes and x-rays. In addition, less than one third (29%) of the participants actually remembered their radon screening level within 10 pCi/L 3 months after receiving their screening results. Only 53% of the individuals correctly interpreted their screening radon level as being in the high range, and only 39% of the participants planned follow-up radon measurements. Receipt of radon screening test results indicating high radon levels was not an adequate motivational factor in itself to stimulate further radon assessment or mitigation. Our findings suggest that free radon screening will not result in a dramatic increase in subsequent homeowner initiated remediation or further recommended radon testing.

Paying for Safety: Voluntary Reduction of Residential Radon Risks

identify radon as a public health problem, to sponsor widespread testing, and to develop reliable, low-cost techniques for reducing indoor exposure levels. Data recently collected in Sweden make it possible to derive the first empirical estimates of homeowner willingness to pay to reduce radon health risks. This paper reports these estimates and discusses their implication for public policy. We conclude that the low value of estimated willingness to pay indicates that homeowners may have interpreted the technology-based recommended exposure as a safety threshold. After reviewing the nature and regulatory history of the radon hazard, we present a theoretical framework for modeling the value of reduced radon risk. The model employs a conventional state-dependent utility function associated with a discrete decision to mitigate or not to mitigate. In subsequent sections we describe the data collected from a sample of homeowners participating in a health department testing program and report parameter estimates from a binomial logit analysis. The estimated parameters form the basis for calculations of the probability of mitigating and willingness to pay for mitigation at various exposure levels and for various household characteristics.