The cost effectiveness of radon mitigation in existing German dwellings--a decision theoretic analysis

Radon hazard vs. radon risk - On the effectiveness of radon priority areas

The detrimental health effects of radon have been acknowledged by national and international legislation such as the European Union Basic Safety Standards (EURATOM-BSS Article 103/3) which requires member states to delineate radon priority areas. These radon priority areas are conventionally based on the concept of hazard by using indoor radon concentration or geogenic radon potential for its delineation. While this approach is efficient for finding many affected buildings with limited resources and, hence, reducing the individual risk, it is probably inefficient for reducing the collective risk if hazard and risk areas differ. In this study we map collective radon risk for Germany by linking information of geogenic radon hazard with exposure (residential building stock). The resulting map of affected residential buildings reveals distinct spatial contrasts compared to the hazard-based map. Further, an analysis based on hypothetical hazard zones elucidates that in Germany the vast majority of affected buildings (i.e., above threshold concentration) are located outside of areas of high and very high hazard. Consequently, in Germany, a radon policy focusing on areas of very high hazard only and within these areas on high concentration buildings only would presumably have no significant effect on the reduction of the total number of radon attributable lung cancer fatalities, i.e. less than 1% of annual radon attributable lung cancer fatalities. We conclude that for reducing the collective risk significantly, also complementary measures are of particular relevance.

Cost-effectiveness analysis to assess the protection of workers from exposure to radon at work: A first application to Italian retail shops

For the implementation of the requirements in the Council Directive 2013/59/Euratom (2013 EUBSS), the cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) is generally considered a useful tool to compare different radon policies aimed at reducing radon exposure both at home and at work. In the framework of the EU funded RADPAR project, a methodology to perform CEA analysis of radon control in dwellings was developed - and used also for WHO's radon recommendations of 2009 - and it is based on the evaluation of the health effectiveness in terms of life years and/or QALYs (Quality Adjusted Life Years) gained. In this work, starting from the RADPAR model used for dwellings, a so-called RADPAR4workplaces model was developed to carry out CEA focused on reduction of radon exposure at workplaces. In particular, different radon policies in existing workplaces were considered and their cost-effectiveness were estimated, as a case study, for the Italian retail shops located at ground floor. Main results show that a policy that requires remedial actions where radon concentration is above a certain reference level (RL) and that recommends them also below this RL has a good cost-effectiveness ratio and it is more effective than a policy with no provisions for radon levels below RL. In particular, the further implementation of remediation below RL improves the health effectiveness increasing QALYs gained of 20% while cost per QALY increases of only 14%. Finally, promoting the remediation of workplaces below RL, QALYs gained and cost per QALY increase of about 80% and 20%, respectively, if remediation rate rises from 10% to 50% below RL.

Regional cost effectiveness analyses for increasing radon protection strategies in housing in Canada

The incremental cost effectiveness ratios for implementing a recent recommendation to install a more radon resistant foundation barrier were modelled for new and existing housing in 2016, for each province and territory in Canada. Cost-utility analyses were conducted, in which the health benefit of an intervention was quantified in quality-adjusted life years, to help guide policymakers considering increasing investment in radon reduction in housing to reduce the associated lung cancer burden shouldered by the health care system. Lung cancer morbidity was modelled using a lifetable analysis that incorporated lung cancer incidence and survival time for localized, regional, and distant stages of diagnoses for both non-small cell and small cell lung cancer. The model accounted for surgical or advanced lung cancer treatment costs avoided, and average health care costs incurred for radon-attributable lung cancer cases prevented by the intervention. The incremental implementation of radon interventions in the housing stock was modelled over a lifetime horizon, and a discount rate of 1.5% was adopted. This radon intervention in new housing was cost effective in all but one region, ranging from $18,075/QALY (15,704; 20,178) for the Yukon to $58,454/QALY (52,045; 65,795) for British Columbia. A sequential analysis was conducted to compare intervention in existing housing for mitigation thresholds of 200 and 100 Bq/m³. This intervention in existing housing was cost effective at a mitigation threshold of 200 Bq/m³ in regions with higher radon levels, ranging from $33,247/QALY (27,699; 39,377) for the Yukon to $61,960/QALY (46,932; 113,737) for Newfoundland, and more cost effective at a threshold of 200 than 100 Bq/m³. More lung cancer deaths can be prevented by intervention in new housing than in existing housing; it was estimated that the proposed intervention in new housing would prevent a mean of 446 (416; 477) lung cancer cases annually. The cost effectiveness of increased radon resistance in foundation barriers in housing varied widely, and would support adopting this intervention in new housing across Canada and in existing housing in higher radon regions. This study provides further evidence that the most cost effective way of responding to the geographically variable radon burden is by implementing specific regional radon reduction policies.

Comprehensive survey on radon mitigation and indoor air quality in energy efficient buildings from Romania

Over the last 10 years applied scientific research has been carried out in Romania to tacked the residential radon issues. The increased interest to reduce the carbon footprint of buildings has lead to the implementation and use of new architectural solutions aimed to save energy in houses and other buildings. As a consequence, the degree of retrofit in existing buildings and energy efficiency of new buildings promoted the need to not only mitigate indoor radon, but improve indoor air quality overall. The present study found that the while the best performance in radon reduction was confirmed to be based on sub-slab depressurization (61% - 95% reduction), centralized and decentralized mechanical supply and exhaust ventilation with heat recovery yielded a good efficiency in overall improvement of indoor air quality (CO₂, VOC, RH, temperature). The outcome of our research, as well as future perspectives, take into account the recommended harmonization of energy efficiency programs with those of public health by finding and applying the best technologies in compliance with energy saving and indoor environmental quality.

An assessment of uncertainty using two different modelling techniques to estimate the cost effectiveness of mitigating radon in existing housing in Canada

The burden of lung cancer associated with residential radon in existing housing can be reduced by interventions to screen and mitigate existing housing having radon levels above a mitigation threshold. The objective of this study is to estimate the cost effectiveness of radon interventions for screening and mitigation of existing housing for the 2016 population in Canada and to assess the structural uncertainty associated with the choice of model used in the cost-utility analysis. The incremental cost utility ratios are estimated using both a Markov cohort model and a discrete event simulation model. A societal perspective, a lifetime horizon and a discount rate of 1.5% are adopted. At a radon mitigation threshold of 200 (100) Bq/m³, the discounted ICERs for current rates of screening and mitigation of existing housing are 72,569 (68,758) $/QALY using a Markov cohort model and 84,828 (76,917) $/QALY using discrete event simulation. It appears that minimal structural uncertainty is associated with the choice of model used for this cost-utility analysis, and the cost effectiveness would improve at increased rates of radon testing and mitigation. The mitigation of radon in existing housing is estimated to be a practical policy option for reducing the associated lung cancer burden in Canada.

A cost effectiveness analysis of interventions to reduce residential radon exposure in Canada

The objective of this analysis is to estimate the incremental cost effectiveness ratios for the 2012 populations in Canada, each province/territory, and 17 census metropolitan areas, for practical radon mitigation scenarios to reduce residential radon exposures. Sixteen intervention scenarios compare radon mitigation implemented at differing rates in new and existing housing relative to preventive measures installed at construction, using three different radon mitigation thresholds. A period life-table analysis was conducted using data derived from two recent Canadian radon surveys, along with Canadian mortality and quality of life data. Analyses adopted a lifetime horizon and a discount rate of 1.5%. It is practical to reduce residential radon and associated lung cancer mortality in Canada, and the most cost effective scenario at each radon mitigation threshold is the combination of the activation of the preventive measures in new housing and mitigation of existing housing.

Radon control activities for lung cancer prevention in national comprehensive cancer control program plans, 2005-2011

Introduction

Radon is the second leading cause of lung cancer among smokers and the leading cause among nonsmokers. The US Environmental Protection Agency recommends that every home be tested for radon. Comprehensive Cancer Control (CCC) programs develop cancer coalitions that coordinate funding and resources to focus on cancer activities that are recorded in cancer plans. Radon tests, remediation, and radon mitigation techniques are relatively inexpensive, but it is unclear whether coalitions recognize radon as an important carcinogen.

Methods

We reviewed 65 cancer plans created from 2005 through 2011 for the terms “radon,” “radiation,” or “lung.” Plan activities were categorized as radon awareness, home testing, remediation, supporting radon policy activities, or policy evaluation. We also reviewed each CCC program’s most recent progress report. Cancer plan content was reviewed to assess alignment with existing radon-specific policies in each state.

Results

Twenty-seven of the plans reviewed (42%) had radon-specific terminology. Improving awareness of radon was included in all 27 plans; also included were home testing (n = 21), remediation (n = 11), support radon policy activities (n = 13), and policy evaluation (n = 1). Three plans noted current engagement in radon activities. Thirty states had radon-specific laws; most (n = 21) were related to radon professional licensure. Eleven states had cancer plan activities that aligned with existing state radon laws.

Conclusion

Although several states have radon-specific policies, approximately half of cancer coalitions may not be aware of radon as a public health issue. CCC-developed cancer coalitions and plans should prioritize tobacco control to address lung cancer but should consider addressing radon through partnership with existing radon control programs.

Requirements relating to radon in the International Basic Safety Standards: information, measurement and national strategies

The fifth edition of the International Basic Safety Standards (BSS) has recently been established as Part 3 of the General Safety Requirements of the IAEA Safety Standards Series. The BSS applies to all exposure situations and to all categories of exposure. As such, the BSS addresses both occupational exposure due to radon in workplaces and public exposure due to radon in dwellings. In workplaces, exposure due to radon is treated either as a planned exposure situation or as an existing exposure situation, depending on the circumstances. With regard to exposure due to radon in dwellings, the BSS requires that general information on radon, including information on health risks and the synergy with smoking, be made available to the public and other interested parties. Countries are also required to determine whether an action plan for controlling exposure due to radon indoors is necessary, and, if so, to establish and implement such an action plan. Guidance material, covering the establishment of reference levels, national and regional radon surveys, identification of radon prone areas, building codes for new buildings, corrective actions for existing buildings, information campaigns and programme evaluation and effectiveness is currently being developed.