Evaluating the health benefits and cost-effectiveness of the radon remediation programme in domestic properties in Northamptonshire, UK

Attributable mortality to radon exposure in Galicia, Spain. Is it necessary to act in the face of this health problem?

“…When radon concentration is higher than 148 Bq/m 3 , up to 25% of lung cancer deaths (among smokers, ex-smokers, and non-smokers alike) could probably be prevented with radon reduction interventions, which translates as 332 lung cancer deaths in the study area, almost one per day in 2001. Nevertheless, Denman and cols [26] have indicated that, even though radon affected areas have been defined by the National Radiological Protection Board as those with over 1% of homes above the action level, radon mitigation activities could only be cost-effective in areas with 5% of homes above 200 Bq/m 3 . At all events, Galicia more than fulfills this requirement, with 17.7% of homes exceeding 200 Bq/m 3 .…”

The cost effectiveness of radon mitigation in existing German dwellings – A decision theoretic analysis

“…Fig. 1 illustrates the scheme for cost effectiveness analyses of radon mitigation described by Kennedy and Gray (2001), which is implemented in most current CEA (see for example Coskeran et al, 2006a,b;Denman et al, 2005;Stigum et al, 2003) and served as the basis for this study. The net costs of interventions are composed of the costs for the identification of buildings with radon concentrations exceeding the pre-defined action level (delivery, reading and reporting costs from the measurement devices), plus expenses for remedial work on buildings (installation, maintenance and running of mitigative measures) and other mitigation efforts that will be incurred over the defined time-horizon, minus any direct and indirect costs (treatment costs and productivity losses from lung cancer morbidity and mortality) that could be averted by reducing lung cancer incidence.…”

“…In the literature, the effectiveness of radon mitigation is indicated as a 75e90% reduction of indoor radon levels (see for example Coskeran et al, 2006a;Denman et al, 2005;Letourneau et al, 1992;Roserens et al, 2000;Thomas et al, 2008) which is also in line with a large exemplary mitigation project in Saxony, Germany (Hamel et al, 1996). Following these studies the average efficiency of radon mitigation is modelled as an 80% reduction of indoor exposure.…”

“…Following remediation, radon exposure can at most be reduced to the average outdoor level of 9 Bq/m 3 . Costs and effects are considered over a period of 40 years, which complies with the average durability of remedial measures and is applied in many international radon intervention studies (see, for example, Coskeran et al, 2006b;Denman et al, 2005;Kennedy et al, 1999;Lubin and Boice, 1997;Stigum et al, 2003). Furthermore, it is assumed that exposed and non-exposed individuals do not differ except for the individual radon exposure.…”

Importance of implementation and residual risk analyses in sediment remediation

“…For example, Hauger et al (2002) and Knapp et al (2003) have developed risk/cost/benefit models to evaluate wastewater treatment systems and water transfers from agricultural to urban and environmental uses. Similar models have been proposed to evaluate different agricultural practices (Osei et al 2003), forest management practices (Brown 2002), remediation of contaminated lands (Tam and Byer 2002), perform environmental impact assessments (Bojorquez‐Tapia et al 2005), and public health management programs (Axelrad et al 2005; Denman et al 2005). Taylor et al (2004) have addressed the uncertainties associated with environmental measurements taken for the purpose of characterizing contaminated lands and supporting remedy decision making and have shown how measurement errors contribute to decision errors, which can have significant financial and public‐health consequences.…”