Evaluation and equity audit of the domestic radon programme in England.

The U.K. has a radon programme to limit the radon risk to health. This involves advice on protective measures in new buildings, technical guidance on their installation, encouragement of radon measurements and remediation in existing dwellings in high radon areas. We have audited the radon programme at the level of individual homes to identify factors that influence the likelihood of remediation. 49% of the householders responded to our survey and 30% of the respondents stated that they had done some remediation to reduce the indoor radon levels. We found that householders with higher incomes and higher socio-economic status are more likely than others to remediate. Householders are less likely to remediate if they have one of the following: living in a property with a high radon concentration, current smokers in the dwelling, being unemployed or an unskilled worker, long length of time living in that property or elderly (65+ years) living by themselves. Householders appeared to be more likely to remediate if they considered the information on radon and its risk to be very clear and useful. This emphasises the importance of communication with householders.

Getting the message across: is communicating risk to the public worth it?

The public and media often seem irrational in their conception of hazard and risk. Scare stories abound, and large sums of money may be spent to mitigate tiny risks. This article describes why it may be human not to be entirely logical about risk. The article also describes what makes risk professionals afraid of entering a public debate on risk. This information is then used to help define how we could improve communication with the public about risk. We discuss how the National Radiological Protection Board is tackling this now.