Search

Studies on human health and ecological effects of ionizing radiation are rapidly evolving as innovative technologies arise and the body of scientific knowledge grows. Structuring this information could effectively support the development of decision making tools and health risk models to complement current system of radiation protection. To this end, the adverse outcome pathway (AOP) approach is being explored as a means to consolidate the most relevant research to identify causation between exposure to a chemical or non-chemical stressor and disease or adverse effect progression. This tool is particularly important for low dose and low dose rate radiation exposures because of the latency and uncertainties in the biological responses at these exposure levels. To progress this aspect, it is essential to build a community of developers, facilitators, risk assessors (in the private sector and in government), policy-makers, and regulators who understand the strengths and weaknesses of, and how to appropriately utilize AOPs for consolidating our knowledge on the impact of low dose ionizing radiation. Through co-ordination with the Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) High-Level Group on Low-Dose Research (HLG-LDR) and OECD's AOP Programme, initiatives are under way to demonstrate this approach in radiation research and regulation. Among these, a robust communications strategy and stakeholder engagement will be essential. It will help establish best practices for AOPs in institutional project development and aid in dissemination for more efficient and timely uptake and use of AOPs. In this regard, on June 1, 2021, the Radiation and Chemical (Rad/Chem) AOP Joint Topical Group was formed as part of the initiative from the NEA's HLG-LDR. The topical group will work to develop a communication and engagement strategy to define the target audiences, establish the clear messages and identify the delivery and engagement platforms. The incorporation of the best science and better decision making should motive the radiation protection community to develop, refine and use AOPs, recognizing that their incorporation into radiation health risk assessments is critical for public health and environmental protection in the 21st century. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Radiation risk communication is a critical component of radiation protection and the public's understanding of radiation risks and benefits. Risk communication becomes even more complicated when considering cultural and language differences. In the US, many diverse communities face risk communication challenges. We obtained radon testing data to evaluate patterns of radon testing in Allentown, the third largest city in Pennsylvania. Radon exposure is the second leading cause of lung cancer after smoking and is associated with over 21,000 lung cancer deaths in the US annually. It is estimated that 1 in every 15 homes in the US has elevated radon levels above the recommended action level set by the US Environmental Protection Agency. Allentown has some of the highest reported levels of indoor radon in the country, yet only a small portion of the population has tested their homes. This is true particularly among self-identified Hispanics, who make up nearly half of the city's population. This study seeks to (1) characterize the difference in testing rates between self-identified Hispanics and non-Hispanics in Allentown, (2) quantify the level of radon awareness and knowledge, (3) identify potential obstacles to radon testing among the Allentown population that self-identifies as Hispanic, and (4) determine whether more effective risk communication is needed. Method: Radon test results in Allentown were analyzed to better understand the nature of radon testing. To evaluate radon awareness and knowledge, a cross-sectional study was conducted using a face-to-face survey. This data was informative in assessing testing and mitigation practices, ethnicity, income level, age, education level, homeowner status, zip code and primary language. Results: Ethnicity was an independent predictor of radon awareness and knowledge. Statistically significant differences were found between the number of self-identified Hispanics (39%) and non-Hispanics (84%) who indicated that they had ever heard of radon; 13% of Hispanics and 49% of non-Hispanics knew that they lived in an area with typically high radon levels. There was a statistically significant association between self-reported ethnicity and radon testing with non-Hispanics (43%) more likely to test their homes for radon than Hispanics (32%). Conclusion: Individual and community understanding of the risks of exposure to radiation sources such as radon is dependent upon communication that informs and spurs appropriate action. This study demonstrates the need for culturally appropriate radon risk communication strategies targeted to a Hispanic population. Successful communication will raise awareness and knowledge that can lead to better public health protection. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on integrating radiation epidemiology and radiobiology for protection of the public after exposure to low doses of ionizing radiation. Topics discussed include human health effects of ionizing radiation; rising trend of radiation-associated malignancy; and biological responses to ionizing radiation in cellular and molecular in vitro systems.

In 2007, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council (NRC), issued the report Toxicity Testing in the 21st Century: A Vision and a Strategy. This report, which was commissioned by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), called for the U.S. EPA to develop a new approach for how this agency evaluates the toxicity of compounds. The report recommended that the agency move from its current testing system, which is based largely on traditional toxicology, to a testing system that is based primarily on human cell lines and in vitro systems. Successful implementation of the report's vision and strategy will require that scientists, lawyers, and policymakers work together to bridge the gap among disciplines. An important step in building this bridge requires an analysis of the U.S. legal system that frames toxicity testing. If the U.S. laws, regulations, and policies erect barriers that would prevent or impede the U.S. EPA adoption of the NRC vision and strategy, it is important to identify these challenges. At the same time, if existing laws, regulations, and policies are fertile ground for these recommendations, opportunities should be documented. This article discusses and evaluates the challenges and opportunities that arise under key provisions of one major U.S. toxics law, the Toxics Substances Control Act (TSCA). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]