Lessons being learned from the Covid-19 pandemic for radiological emergencies and vice versa: report from expert discussions.

In order to examine what lessons radiological emergency management may offer for the management of the Covid-19 pandemic, and vice versa, a series of three online webinars were conducted with leading experts, scholars and practitioners from a wide range of disciplines essential for emergency management and long-term risk governance. The first webinar debated the lessons we are learning from the Covid-19 pandemic for radiological risk communication, the second explored issues around longer-term outcomes of a crisis and how to balance these with short-term actions whilst the third focused on the key challenges of the 'transition phase', using lessons learned from the Chernobyl (1986) and Fukushima Daichii (2011) accidents. This paper reviews the discussions and provides valuable lessons for the radiation protection community. Results of the discussions indicated that: (a) non-radiological and non-epidemiological consequences of emergencies, for example psychological (mental health), societal and economic, should not be underestimated; (b) multidisciplinary expertise is imperative for communication efforts and for effective emergency management, including decision-making in the application of protective measures; (c) stakeholder engagement, including the involvement of the potentially affected population, should be encouraged from an early stage; and (d) trust is increased if policy-makers and the main science agencies show a unified voice.

Towards a strategic research agenda for social sciences and humanities in radiological protection.

Reflecting a change in funding strategies for European research projects, and a commitment to the idea of responsible research and innovation in radiological protection (RP), a collective of research institutes and universities have developed a prospective Strategic Research Agenda (SRA) for Social Sciences and Humanities (SSH) in radiological protection. This is the first time such a research agenda has been proposed. This paper identifies six research lines of interest and concern: (1) Effects of social, psychological and economic aspects on RP behaviour; (2) Holistic approaches to the governance of radiological risks; (3) Responsible research and innovation in RP; (4) Stakeholder engagement and participatory processes in RP research, development, policy and practice; (5) Risk communication; and (6) RP cultures. These topics were developed through broad stakeholder consultation, in conjunction with activities carried out in the framework of various projects and initiatives (EU H2020 CONCERT programme, the EU FP7 projects OPERRA, PREPARE and EAGLE, the 2015-2018 RICOMET series of conferences, and the 2014 and 2016 International Symposia on Ethics of Environmental Health); as well as through dialogues with members of the European radiation protection research communities. The six research lines open opportunities to integrate a range of key social and ethical considerations into RP, thereby expanding research opportunities and programmes and fostering collaborative approaches to research and innovation.

Support for the "Vancouver call for action to strengthen expertise in radiological protection worldwide": the position of organisations in formal relations with the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP).

The International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP), recently expressed concern that "a shortage of investment in training, education, research, and infrastructure seen in many sectors and countries may compromise society's ability to properly manage radiation risks" and in 2022 announced the "Vancouver call for action to strengthen expertise in radiological protection worldwide". As representatives of organisations in formal relations with ICRP, we decided to promote this position paper to declare and emphasise that strengthening the expertise in radiological protection is a collective priority for all of us.

Evaluation of Radon Action Plans: Searching for a Systematic and Standardised Method.

Radon, a carcinogenic radioactive gas, is a leading cause of lung cancer according to the World Health Organization. European Member States are required to develop and implement National Radon Action Plans (RAPs) to address its dangerous health effects. However, assessing the effectiveness of these RAPs presents challenges for authorities. This study aims to explore the possibility of a systematic and standardised assessment method to evaluate the effectiveness of RAP strategies and its implementation. The method involved analysing the strategies of 27 EU Member States and the UK, conducting legal document analysis and group interviews with responsible authorities. Additionally, four regional workshops and one final European workshop were held. The research took place from March 2021 to May 2023. Findings indicate that evaluating RAP effectiveness is challenging due to limited existing common criteria or indicators. To address this, the study proposes guiding questions for each element required by the EU Directive, as well as additional questions related to education and training. This contribution benefits RAP owners and European regulatory authorities, supporting the development of effectiveness indicators for RAPs. By improving assessment methods, we can enhance the effectiveness of strategies in mitigating the risks associated with radon exposure.

A psycho-social-environmental lens on radon air pollutant: authorities', mitigation contractors', and residents' perceptions of barriers and facilitators to domestic radon mitigation.

Introduction: Radon is a major indoor air pollutant that poses a significant risk of lung cancer to those exposed in their homes. While mitigation of high radon levels in homes has been shown to be effective, home mitigation rates remain low. This study examines the barriers and facilitators to radon mitigation in homes from the perspectives of authorities responsible for radon risk management, the mitigation industry (contractors), and residents in four European countries (Belgium, Ireland, Slovenia, and the UK) with high radon risks and low mitigation rates. Methods: A multi-method approach was used to gather data from various stakeholders, including online surveys, content analysis of legal documents, group interviews, workshops, and focus groups. Results: Authorities, contractors, and residents identified various facilitators to radon mitigation, including legal requirements for mitigation, awareness campaigns, low mitigation costs, availability of financial support, accreditation of mitigation contractors, and a perception of radon as a health threat. However, barriers to mitigation were also identified, such as a lack of awareness, fragmented mitigation processes, and inadequate communication between stakeholders. Discussion: The study highlights the complexity of the radon mitigation process and suggests that interventions aimed at increasing mitigation rates should target stakeholders beyond just residents, such as constructors, health professionals, and policy makers. An integrated approach to radon mitigation, from policy to provision, is necessary to effectively lower levels of this indoor air pollutant.

Evaluation of citizen science contributions to radon research.

In order to reduce lung cancer due to radon exposure situations, not only authorities and organisations but also citizens may meaningfully contribute to radon mitigation actions. Citizen science (CS) initiatives are recognised for their scientific, societal and policy value related to environmental issues. The purpose of this paper is to identify which CS initiatives in the field of radon exist and evaluate to what extent these CS initiatives contribute to radon research and/or radiation protection from radon. We conducted a systematic review of internet pages and scientific literature (September-December 2020) as well as expert consultation to help us identify and assess CS initiatives on radon (September 2020-February 2021). The ten principles of the European Citizen Science Association have been used as a starting point to develop indicators for the analysis of CS contributions to radon research. The results show that there are at least eight CS initiatives in the world contributing to radon related research which comply, to some degree, with each of the ten principles. In all these initiatives citizens contributed or are contributing meaningfully to radon testing and measurements. However, most of them apply the simplest form of participation (crowdsourcing) and only one focuses on radon mitigation. Moreover, unlike CS initiatives in other environmental areas, those focusing on radon are always led by the authorities and/or universities, in a top-down manner. Yet, results confirm that both the experts in radon-related fields and the citizen scientists from radon prone areas benefit from taking part in radon CS initiatives. Experiences and lessons learned in radon related to CS initiatives are identified and discussed in order to inspire future CS initiatives potentially contributing to reducing exposure to radon as well as to the implementation of national radon action plans.

Societal constraints related to environmental remediation and decommissioning programmes.

The decisions related to decommissioning or environmental remediation projects (D/ER) cannot be isolated from the socio-political and cultural environment. Experiences of the IAEA Member States point out the importance of giving due attention to the societal aspects in project planning and implementation. The purpose of this paper is threefold: i) to systematically review societal constraints that some organisations in different IAEA Member States encounter when implementing D/ER programmes, ii) to identify different approaches to overcome these constraints and iii) to collect examples of existing practices related to the integration of societal aspects in D/ER programmes worldwide. The research was conducted in the context of the IAEA project Constraints to Decommissioning and Environmental Remediation (CIDER). The research results show that societal constraints arise mostly as a result of the different perceptions, attitudes, opinions and concerns of stakeholders towards the risks and benefits of D/ER programmes and due to the lack of stakeholder involvement in planning. There are different approaches to address these constraints, however all approaches have common points: early involvement, respect for different views, mutual understanding and learning. These results are relevant for all on-going and planned D/ER programmes.