The Potsdam radon communication manifesto

Bouder, Frédéric; Perko, Tanja; Löfstedt, Ragnar E.; Renn, Ortwin; Rossmann, Constanze; Hevey, David; Siegrist, Michael; Ringer, W.; Pölzl-Viol, Christiane; Dowdall, A.; Fojtı́ková, Ivana; Barazza, F.; Hoffmann, B.; Lutz, A; Hurst, Stéphanie; Reifenhäuser, C.

doi:10.1080/13669877.2019.1691858

Cited by 21 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Furthermore, the extensive attention spa websites put on radon's natural origins and characteristics stands in contrast to recent advice formulated for those designing health campaigns. This latter advice builds on the notion that people "perceive technological threats to be more risky than natural threats" [34], and hence stresses that "risk communicators need to draw attention to radon" not as a natural gas, but rather as a major cause of "indoor air pollution" [35]. Thirdly, radon spa websites mostly provide implicit and non-visual references to radon risk (if any), while health campaigns contain numerous explicit references to the lung cancer risk associated with radon, often supported by various visuals (see e.g., the websites of the 2021 US radon awareness week https://www.cdc.gov/radon/awareness.html, the 2021 European radon week https://radoneurope.org/event/european-radonweek-2021/, or the 2020 UK radon awareness week https:// radonweek.co.uk/).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cure or Carcinogen? A Framing Analysis of European Radon Spa Websites

Geysmans

Perko

Keser

et al. 2022

Int J Public Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: Radon, a radioactive gas, is among the leading causes of lung-cancer worldwide. While public health authorities emphasize radon’s health risks, there are spas across Europe which claim health benefits of radon. This study investigates how websites of European radon spas frame radon gas, in order to understand the potential controversy between “radon as carcinogen” and “radon as cure,” and its potential impact on public health interventions.Methods: A two-phased frame analysis of websites of radon spas (n = 26) situated in the European Union.Results: Five frames are identified, which present radon as a 1) source of health, 2) natural gas, 3) (non) risk, 4) luxury and 5) fountain of youth. These five partly overlapping frames are at times in clear contrast with the ways in which radon is presented in a public health context.Conclusion: Being aware of the existence and contents of radon frames, which potentially challenge or contradict public health interventions, helps responsible authorities in designing more effective campaigns and interventions.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cure or Carcinogen? A Framing Analysis of European Radon Spa Websites

Geysmans

Perko

Keser

et al. 2022

Int J Public Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There is a legal requirement in the EU member states to increase public awareness, and to inform local decision makers, employers and employees of the risks of radon, including in relation to smoking [ 11 ]. Moreover, the EU member states shall provide, as appropriate, approaches for the involvement of stakeholders in decisions regarding the development and implementation of strategies to manage exposure situations.…”

Section: Some Gaps In Existing National Radon Control Strategiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Efforts to communicate the risks of radon and behavioural recommendations to avoid them have many gaps, and are limited in various aspects. Bouder et al pointed out that recommended radon communication, as organised by authorities, is still often not evidence-based, theory-based nor strategic [ 11 ]. The results of a systematic review of health communication campaigns in the field of radon found that, although not recommended, an informative tone of voice (factual, scientific and numerical information) in radon communication prevails.…”

Section: Some Gaps In Existing National Radon Control Strategiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…To help address this problem, the EU Basic Safety Standards Directive has required MS to set a reference level no greater than 300 Bq/m 3 , while lower national reference levels of 100 or 200 Bq/m 3 have been adopted in a number of countries, especially for dwellings (e.g., Ireland, the United Kingdom, Estonia, Denmark, Finland, Sweden, and the Netherlands) [ 9 , 10 ]. An important part of many national radon control strategies has been to encourage members of the public to measure radon in their homes, and to remediate them when the level exceeds the reference level [ 11 ]. In spite of the considerable efforts from radiation protection authorities over the past half century, there has been very little voluntary action from the public to deal with radon in their homes [ 12 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Suggestions for Improvements in National Radon Control Strategies of Member States Which Were Developed as a Requirement of EU Directive 2013/59 EURATOM

Laughlin

Gutierrez-Villanueva²,

Perko

2022

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Exposure to the indoor air pollutant radon is considered to be a significant health risk globally, as has been demonstrated by many studies over time. A recent WHO statement on radon estimates that, worldwide, approximately 80,000 people may die every year due to lung cancer associated with radon exposure. The recent years have also seen huge improvements in radon policies in European countries, as a consequence of the issuing, in 2013, of the Council Directive 2013/59/Euratom. Although the protection of workers from radon exposure is well established, the protection of the general public needs more improvements. The main objective of this paper is, first, to acknowledge and recognise the improvements in radon protection policies, but also to show that there are many areas where improvements are desirable and possible. The final goal is to suggest better ways to protect the general population from exposure to radon gas. The suggestions are based on the experiences of the co-authors, who come from different disciplines related to radon management. The following fields or areas where improvements are possible are identified: risk communication, building codes, radon policies, including funding, research and protection of children. We describe the work that has been conducted, and the possible improvements and solutions in these fields.

show abstract

“…The strategy of communication with stakeholders, including the population, is supposed to be an integral part of national radon programs. The problem of low public awareness of radon and the health risk it poses is still typical for many countries [9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16], including the Russian Federation. This leads to the fact that there is no market for radon protection and remediation of buildings in our country yet [17].…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Radon Risk Communication Issues: Results of the All-Russian Public Opinion Survey

Davydov¹,

Библин²,

Кононенко³

2021

Health Risk Analysis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

1,500 respondents took part in an Internet survey conducted in autumn 2020 in the Russian Federation. The survey was a part of the Radon Cross-Cultural Multilingual Public Opinion Survey (STEAM project) in the framework of the IAEA technical cooperation project RER9153. The survey was representative for the population of the country as per sex, age, and a region of residence. Random sampling error didn’t exceed 2.5 % for 95 % confidence interval. All respondents were given some information on radon that was as similar as possible in questionnaires published in languages spoken in all 22 coun- tries that took part in the STEAM project; it was done in order to provide an opportunity to make further cross-country com- parison of the survey results. The objective of the survey was to investigate what attitudes people had towards their health and towards radon as a possible health risk factor. The survey revealed that in the Russian Federation people were rather poorly aware about radon. Only 31.7 % re- spondents stated that they were to a greater or lesser extent informed about radon. The level of knowledge about radon as a health risk factor was at a comparable level. For the majority of respondents, information about radon received from Ro- spotrebnadzor and its subordinate research institute formed the perception of radon as a risk factor that requires actions to mitigate its impact on health. Medical specialists turned out to be the most trustworthy source of information about health risks, first of all, family doctors and physicians in polyclinics; people also trusted medical prevention centers, Rospotrebnad- zor, regional and local public health care authorities. Results of the presented survey that was the first social survey focusing on the radon problem and conducted through- out the country can be used as a basis for planning communication strategies within the framework of both national and regional radon programs.

show abstract

The Potsdam radon communication manifesto

Cited by 21 publications

References 4 publications

Cure or Carcinogen? A Framing Analysis of European Radon Spa Websites

Cure or Carcinogen? A Framing Analysis of European Radon Spa Websites

Suggestions for Improvements in National Radon Control Strategies of Member States Which Were Developed as a Requirement of EU Directive 2013/59 EURATOM

Radon Risk Communication Issues: Results of the All-Russian Public Opinion Survey

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About