Justification and optimisation in the choice of reference levels for radon in existing Spanish dwellings

Abstract

The results of a national radon survey of 1555 Spanish single family dwellings have been used as the basis for considering the need for and optimisation of intervention to reduce exposure. Certain assumptions have been made about the distribution of radon levels in apartments in order to define the total number of dwellings in need of remediation for reference levels within the range 200-600 Bq m-3. The costs of remediation have been based on the use of radon sumps and published data on installation and maintenance costs have been applied. The monetary value of radiation detriment has been calculated on the basis of the gross national product for Spain and a multiplication factor to account for psycho-social factors has been derived and applied. When compared with everyday risks over which the individual has some control, a reference level somewhere within the range 100-300 Bq m-3 is suggested. The results of cost-benefit analysis are inconclusive: the net benefit of intervention varies by less than 10% for the range of reference levels considered, The sensitivity of the results to changes in either the number of dwellings to be remediated or the monetary value of radiation detriment is also reported. In terms of lung cancer death averted, the costs are within the range $140000-$260000, the higher values being associated with the most restrictive reference level. It is concluded that a high degree of weight can be assigned to the social and political factors in any final decision on choice of reference levels and the responsible national agencies need to consider the costs per life saved by other health initiatives in order to derive maximum benefit from national expenditure.

A comparison of the costs and benefits of radon remediation programmes in new and existing houses in Northamptonshire

“…At some stage, perhaps around 5% it becomes difficult to justify the wholesale use of membranes. It has been shown previously (Denman and Phillips, 1998c) that the cost effectiveness in existing houses is similar to that predicted by theoretical studies (Colgan and Gutiérrez, 1995;1996;Marcinowski and Napolitano, 1993;Snihs, 1992;Létourneau et al, 1992). However, there are fewer studies of the costs in new housing.…”

“…Létourneau et al (1992) concluded that installing active systems in all new houses in Canada was too expensive to be realistic. Considering passive systems, as in Northamptonshire, Colgan and Gutiérrez (1995) suggested an Annualised Cost per lung cancer saved of £233 000 using a discount rate of 10% (when corrected to June 1997 costs) when 8Ð7% of homes in Spain were above the Action Level of 200 Bq.m 3 , at a average cost of £240 per house. Their value for the Annualised Cost is lower than in Northamptonshire, but is consistent with our results, allowing for the lower cost which was assumed for the membrane, and the larger number of houses above the Action Level, which would result in a greater dose saving per unit population.…”

The cost-effectiveness of radon-proof membranes in new homes: A case study from Brixworth, Northamptonshire, UK

“…QALYs gained were held to be spread equally over 40 years and were discounted in the same way as [36] discounted life-years gained. [37], however, questioned this approach, as, they argued, it would take time for lung cancer cases to present following initial exposure to radon.…”

Cost–benefit analyses of radon mitigation projects

“…Several studies in other countries have investigated either the cost effectiveness or cost benefit of radon mitigation programmes. Among these are Snihs (1992) (Sweden), Colgan and Gutie´rrez (1995) (Spain), Kennedy and Gray (2001), Coskeran et al (2002), Denman et al (2000), Denman et al (2002), Kennedy et al (2002) (UK), Ford et al (1999), Lin et al (1999) (USA) and Stigum et al (2003) (Norway). These studies use a cost-efficiency or cost-analysis approach, with Colgan and Gutie´rrez (1995) as the only exception.…”