Search

Background: Radon is the second-leading cause of lung cancer worldwide. Most indoor exposure occurs by diffusion of soil gas. Radon is also found in well water, natural gas, and ambient air. Pennsylvania has high indoor radon concentrations; buildings are often tested during real estate transactions, with results reported to the Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP)., Objectives: We evaluated predictors of indoor radon concentrations., Methods: Using first-floor and basement indoor radon results reported to the PADEP between 1987 and 2013, we evaluated associations of radon concentrations (natural log transformed) with geology, water source, building characteristics, season, weather, community socioeconomic status, community type, and unconventional natural gas development measures based on drilled and producing wells., Results: Primary analysis included 866,735 first measurements by building, with the large majority from homes. The geologic rock layer on which the building sat was strongly associated with radon concentration (e.g., Axemann Formation, median = 365 Bq/m3, IQR = 167-679 vs. Stockton Formation, median = 93 Bq/m3, IQR = 52-178). In adjusted analysis, buildings using well water had 21% higher concentrations (β = 0.191, 95% CI: 0.184, 0.198). Buildings in cities (vs. townships) had lower concentrations (β = -0.323, 95% CI: -0.333, -0.314). When we included multiple tests per building, concentrations declined with repeated measurements over time. Between 2005 and 2013, 7,469 unconventional wells were drilled in Pennsylvania. Basement radon concentrations fluctuated between 1987 and 2003, but began an upward trend from 2004 to 2012 in all county categories (p < 0.001), with higher levels in counties having ≥ 100 drilled wells versus counties with none, and with highest levels in the Reading Prong., Conclusions: Geologic unit, well water, community, weather, and unconventional natural gas development were associated with indoor radon concentrations. Future studies should include direct environmental measurement of radon, as well as building features unavailable for this analysis., Citation: Casey JA, Ogburn EL, Rasmussen SG, Irving JK, Pollak J, Locke PA, Schwartz BS. 2015. Predictors of indoor radon concentrations in Pennsylvania, 1989-2013. Environ Health Perspect 123:1130-1137; http://dx.doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1409014.

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]