Rural communities experience higher radon exposure versus urban areas, potentially due to drilled groundwater well annuli acting as unintended radon gas migration conduits.

Repetitive, long-term inhalation of radioactive radon gas is one of the leading causes of lung cancer, with exposure differences being a function of geographic location, built environment, personal demographics, activity patterns, and decision-making. Here, we examine radon exposure disparities across the urban-to-rural landscape, based on 42,051 Canadian residential properties in 2034 distinct communities. People living in rural, lower population density communities experience as much as 31.2% greater average residential radon levels relative to urban equivalents, equating to an additional 26.7 Bq/m3 excess in geometric mean indoor air radon, and an additional 1 mSv/year in excess alpha radiation exposure dose rate to the lungs for occupants. Pairwise and multivariate analyses indicate that community-based radon exposure disparities are, in part, explained by increased prevalence of larger floorplan bungalows in rural areas, but that a majority of the effect is attributed to proximity to, but not water use from, drilled groundwater wells. We propose that unintended radon gas migration in the annulus of drilled groundwater wells provides radon migration pathways from the deeper subsurface into near-surface materials. Our findings highlight a previously under-appreciated determinant of radon-induced lung cancer risk, and support a need for targeted radon testing and reduction in rural communities.

Rising Canadian and falling Swedish radon gas exposure as a consequence of 20th to 21st century residential build practices.

Radioactive radon gas inhalation is a major cause of lung cancer worldwide and is a consequence of the built environment. The average radon level of properties built in a given period (their 'innate radon risk') varies over time and by region, although the underlying reasons for these differences are unclear. To investigate this, we analyzed long term radon tests and buildings from 25,489 Canadian to 38,596 Swedish residential properties constructed after 1945. While Canadian and Swedish properties built from 1970 to 1980s are comparable (96-103 Bq/m3), innate radon risks subsequently diverge, rising in Canada and falling in Sweden such that Canadian houses built in the 2010-2020s have 467% greater radon (131 Bq/m3) versus Swedish equivalents (28 Bq/m3). These trends are consistent across distinct building types, and regional subdivisions. The introduction of energy efficiency measures (such as heat recovery ventilation) within each nation's build codes are independent of radon fluctuations over time. Deep learning-based models forecast that (without intervention) the average Canadian residential radon level will increase to 176 Bq/m3 by 2050. Provisions in the 2010 Canada Build Code have not significantly reduced innate radon risks, highlighting the urgency of novel code interventions to achieve systemic radon reduction and cancer prevention in Canada.

Younger North Americans are exposed to more radon gas due to occupancy biases within the residential built environment.

Residential buildings can concentrate radioactive radon gas, exposing occupants to particle radiation that increases lung cancer risk. This has worsened over time in North America, with newer residences containing greater radon. Using data from 18,971 Canadian households, we calculated annual particle radiation dose rates due to long term residential radon exposure, and examined this as a function of occupant demographics. The current particle radiation dose rate to lungs from residential radon in Canada is 4.08 mSv/y from 108.2 Bq/m3, with 23.4% receiving 100-2655 mSv doses that are known to elevate human cancer risk. Notably, residences built in the twenty-first century are occupied by significantly younger people experiencing greater radiation dose rates from radon (mean age of 46 at 5.01 mSv/y), relative to older groups more likely to occupy twentieth century-built properties (mean age of 53 at 3.45-4.22 mSv/y). Newer, higher radon-containing properties are also more likely to have minors, pregnant women and an overall higher number of occupants living there full time. As younger age-of-exposure to radon equates to greater lifetime lung cancer risk, these data reveal a worst case scenario of exposure bias. This is of concern as, if it continues, it forecasts serious future increases in radon-induced lung cancer in younger people.