Radon Risk Communication with Attorneys and Jurors

Attorneys and jurors will have their own ideas of radon health risks before hearing any testimony. For most people, without radiation training, radon is mysterious because they cannot detect the presence of radon with their five senses. For some, radon may not represent a significant danger because people do not see any direct evidence of lung cancer due to radon. For others, radon as a radioactive gas, may represent a sinister source of unknown danger. Many people intuitively assume that radiation (radon) equals cancer and death. They readily accept two word risk assessments, such as "deadly radiation" which assumes cause and effect. The role of the radon professional, as an expert witness, is to lead attorneys and juries through the scientific process of radon risk assessment which examines each step from cause to effect. Information should be presented on the properties of radon (naturally occurring radioactive gas, comes from uranium and radium, emits alpha particles, forms decay products which also emit alpha particles), behavior of radon as a gas, entry into homes from the ground, accumulation of decay products, exposure conditions, deposition of alpha particles in the lung, how exposure to decay products can lead to lung cancer, and evidence for lung cancer risk. For effective communication, the radon expert witness needs to present the radon risk assessment process in a language that can be understood by attorneys and jurors. This means minimizing the use of jargon or else explaining radon terminology in terms that likely have meaning in the experience of the attorneys or jury. Studies with the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator show that most people do not want conceptual, abstract, or theoretical information. They want information that is concrete, specific, practical, sensible, real, and based on facts that they can verify in their own experience. We also need to take into account people's feelings about radon risks. Leading people to a feeling based decision requires a different approach than normally used by scientists who generally make decisions based on logical analysis.