Risk Perception and Driving Forces For

The motivation for performing indoor radon reduction measurements or mitigation are generally communicated by the commercial radon industry on the basis of identifying and eliminating a potential health hazard. The role of the commercial indoor radon industry is complicated by the different perspectives of the problem that have developed for various interested parties. Interested parties include homeowners, building owners, building occupants, builders, architects, realtors, and lawmakers. Each of these groups make an intuitive risklbenefit decision regarding their options for dealing with an indoor radon problem, which extends well beyond the consideration of potential health risks. Issues considered to be important to each of these groups arc presented and analyzed in the context of the relative costhnefit to the individual group. The results are discussed in terms of the traditional risk communication techniques used by the industry. The analysis is subsequently used to develop and illustrate more effective risk communication techniques that address the issues perceived to be important for each group. INTRODUCTION Elevated indoor concentrations of R̂n in homes and workplaces around the world have been identified as a major radiation protection issue. On average, indoor radon concentrations account for more than half of the U.S. general population's radiation exposure [NCRP 19871 and a number of structures across the U.S. have demonstrated radon concentrations that are elevated to concentrations similar to occupational exposures which have clearly correlated with increased incidence of lung cancersfNationa1 Academy of Sciences 19881. Elevated indoor radon concentrations are attributed with producing the second largest incidence of lung cancer, following smoking [U.S. EPA 19921. Government agencies have initiated steps to reduce the public's exposure to this carcinogen by utilizing information campaigns designed to motivate members of the general public to determine their exposures and take action to reduce radon concentrations in their homes if they exceed 4 pCi L"' 1148 Bq m'3]. The programs that have been used to inform and encourage the public to reduce their exposures, and coverage by the popular press have, however, not been particularly effective in motivating measurement andlor mitigation activities. This paper discusses some of the reasons for the apathetic public response to indoor radon and presents improved techniques for communicating the scope of the problem that can be adopted to provide more meaningful input to the members of the general public. It is these members of the public who must understand the relevant aspects of radon risk assessments since they are ultimately responsible for making decisions for radon measurement andlor reduction. TRADITIONAL RISK COMMUNICATION Risks resulting from radiation exposures are typically developed and communicated in quantifiable terms such as absolute risk, relative risk, lives lost per year or years lost per lifetime, etc. Once quantified these risks can be readily compared in order to prioritize and develop comparisons of the risks resulting from a variety of activities or agents. Different techniques must be used to effectively communicate risk to different audiences [National 1995 International Radon Symposium 11 3.1 Research Council 19891. This is particularly true for radiation, and in particular, the risks from indoor radon exposures. Health physicists, for example, prefer to express risk in numerical quantities of absolute or relative risks. This is not very useful for most other members of the general public because they lack the background to put the risks into the proper context. It is therefore quite common to illustrate the risks by developing a ranking of relative risks from a variety of activities and environmental agents. An effective example for the risks associated with indoor radon exposures is presented in the U.S. EPA's Citizen's Guide [3], which have been adopted for inclusion in state radon program and commercial radon measurement and mitigation company brochures. This provides a ranking of risks resulting from various levels of exposure to indoor radon relative to other hazards to which the public can more readily relate, such as fires, drownings, automobile accidents, etc., and put the risks in perspective. Members of the radiation protection community are familiar with this methodology and have undoubtedly seen any number of risk tables (or even software packages) for a variety of types of radiation exposures over the years. These assist the public in developing an intellectual understanding of these risks, but we have come to recognize that the ultimate perception of risk is frequently more solidly based on the underlying feelings and emotions associated with an activity or agent, rather than an intellectual analysis [Johnson 19931. PUBLIC RISK PERCEPTION The Power Reactor Section of the Health Physics Society is currently reviewing the issue of risk communication and public perception and has consequently examined new strategies for risk communication, including the "Hazard + Outrage* formula developed by Sandman[Russe11 and Gany 1994. Hance et a1 19901. This formula is based on the observation that public risk perception is not confined to the quantitative risks, i.e. the 'hazard", but also includes an outrage factor that is based strongly on an emotional perception of the activity or agent under consideration. Sandman presents twelve elements that contribute to the outrage factor. These elements are itemized below, along with an analysis of the public's general conception of indoor radon risks compares in each area. For each element of the outrage factor, the first component contributes to the perception of a safe activity while the second component contributes to the perception of a high risk activity.