Search

Background: 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., Conclusion: 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.

The past 50 y have seen substantial developments in radiation epidemiology, technology, dosimetry, regulations, and protection efforts. During the last five decades, radiation communication has also evolved, growing more sophisticated as communication science and practice have advanced and matured. This talk covers the trends in radiation protection over the past 50 y, illustrated by progress in science and practice of risk communication and changes in societal expectations, and examines challenges that will confront radiation risk communication in the future.

This paper is focused on summarizing the "lessons learned" from discussions at the 2010 NCRP Annual Meeting on effective communications on the subject of radiation benefits and risks in public exposures. Five main lessons learned are discussed in regard to effective methods of public communication: the use of new social media communication tools such as Facebook and Twitter, emergency situations that require rapid societal and personal messaging, medical radiological procedures where benefits must be described in comparison to long-term health risks of radiation exposures, and information that should be provided to stakeholders in situations such as environmental radionuclide contamination to which members of the public may be exposed. It is concluded that effective communications in which radiation benefits are contrasted with health risks of exposure are an important aspect of making and implementing decisions on employing radiation health protection procedures.

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]

One of the most important challenges facing risk mangers in the coming decades is the joint management of chemical and radiological wastes. Born out of different traditions, radiation and chemical risk approaches can differ sharply. Radiation protection generally focuses on establishing effective dose levels across media and utilizes an approach that incorporates the philosophy of ALARA. In contrast, chemical risk management strategies are medium specific and risk based. In practice these differences can complicate decision making and potentially lead to duplicative efforts. We have undertaken a series of case studies to determine the extent and nature of the barriers that exist with regard to the potential harmonization of risk management approaches. Built upon the results of an interactive workshop held in June 1998, these case studies examine how cleanup decisions were made at a series of contaminated sites around the United States. It is anticipated that these case studies will demonstrate (1) the areas of greatestdiscord among chemical and radiological risk management approaches, and (2) how gaps in approaches could be bridged. This presentation will review the important conclusions of these case studies and (if possible) offer suggestions about how chemical and radiation risk management can be harmonized. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]