Evaluating the health benefits and cost-effectiveness of the radon remediation programme in domestic properties in Northamptonshire, UK.
Although previous analysis of health benefits and cost-effectiveness of radon remediation in a series of houses in Northamptonshire suggested that testing and remediation was justified, recent results indicate fewer predicted affected houses than previously assumed. Despite numerous awareness campaigns, limited numbers of householders have tested their homes, only a minority of affected householders have remediated, and those most at risk generally fail to remediate. Moreover, a recent survey shows a wide range of public perception of radon risk, not significantly influenced by public health campaigns. These observations impact our previous analysis, which has been reviewed in the light of these observations. Following the declaration of Northamptonshire, UK, as a radon Affected Area in 1992, a series of public awareness campaigns encouraged householders to assess domestic radon levels and, if appropriate, to take action to reduce them. Despite these awareness campaigns, however, only moderate numbers of householders have taken remediatory action. The costs of such remedial work in a series of domestic properties in Northamptonshire, the radon level reduction achieved, and the resultant heath benefit to the residents, have been the subject of study by our group for some years. Previous analysis, based on estimates of the total number of affected houses derived from the National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB) test data for the area, suggested that a programme of testing and remediation in Northamptonshire could be justified. The NRPB has continued to initiate and to collate radon testing, and published further results in 2003. These results include revised predictions of the numbers of affected houses, now considered to be less than the numbers previously assumed. More recently, the availability of the European Community Radon Software (ECRS) has permitted calculation of individual, rather than population-average, risk, demonstrating that those most at risk are generally those who do not take action. In addition, a recent survey of risk perception shows an extremely wide range of public perception of radon risk, a perception that has not been significantly altered by public health campaigns. These predictions have profound effects, both on our previous analysis, particularly since only limited numbers of householders test their homes and even fewer remediate if they discover raised levels, and also on the public health strategies for this risk.
Denman
Antony
A
Medical Physics Department, Northampton General Hospital, Cliftonville, Northampton NN1 5BD, UK. tony.denman@ngh.nhs.uk
Groves-Kirkby
Christopher
C
Coskeran
Thomas
T
Parkinson
Steven
S
Phillips
Paul
P
Tornberg
Roges
R
D003362:Cost-Benefit Analysis; D004781:Environmental Exposure / Q000517:prevention & control*; D006304:Health Status; D006798:Housing; D006801:Humans; D011886:Radon / Q000302:isolation & purification*; D006113:United Kingdom
D011886:Radon