Radon Resistant New Construction
Dear Editor:
I am a doctoral candidate in advertising at The University of Texas at Austin, a National Science Foundation fellow, and grantee of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. I have been working in U.S. EPA’s Indoor Environments Division and in affiliation with the inter-agency Healthy Homes Work Group since January. Recently, I had the privilege of attending the NEHA/U.S. EPA Radon Resistant New Construction (RRNC) workshop in Washington, DC. Listening to the points that arose during Q&A and in the conversations that came up between presentations and during the lunches, there was a strong recurring theme that resonates with my background in communication and psychology:
perhaps the greatest obstacle facing radon testing, radon mitigation, and radon-resistant new construction is human irrationality.
This is not to say that humans cannot think straight; but what does it say about us when there is a long chain of loose connections between awareness and action? How is it that knowing about radon risk is hardly predictive of intention to test or mitigate, and that intention is hardly of predictive of actual behavior? A large body of psychological and sociological research has asked these very questions, and they have provided some answers. With anecdotes (and running counter to my training as a social scientist), I make a brief argument for promoting rational decision processes related to radon testing and mitigation. Three examples help make my point.
(1) I am aware that radon is deadly and that indoor concentrations can vary greatly between neighboring houses, let alone within municipalities and counties. Yet, I have not tested my Austin
home for radon because Travis County has an average predicted indoor radon concentration of less than two picocuries per liter. For that, I am irrational.
(2) Two of my close friends are expecting a baby this summer. I convinced them to test their home for radon (having not tested my own home), as they live in a Montana county with a high radon risk of which I made them aware. Out of curiosity about the results, I called the expectant father a month later to find out that he had purchased a radon test kit but had not taken the time to hang it up. Perhaps it is common for people to spend money on products they will not take the time to use;
but when using a product will help protect the life of your unborn child, not using it is highly irrational, especially when the intention to use it is strong.
(3) During the RRNC workshop, one of the presenters mentioned a radon mitigation course he taught in which many of the participants had not tested their homes for radon. That is to say, the participants spent time to learn how to mitigate an unconfirmed problem. How irrational! However, this irrationality likely stemmed from the psychological need to ignore problems that have no easy solutions. Learning that radon mitigation can be quick and easy helped them cope with the possibility that they might have high radon.
Considering the complexities and frequent irrationality of human decision processes, connecting awareness with knowledgeable awareness with intention to test with actual testing with intention to mitigate with actual mitigation can be a long and difficult path to achieve. Absent expanded federal regulation, how then can we expect to motivate market-driven growth in radonresistant new construction practices across America (assuming a market-driven approach is ideal)?
The solution lies fundamentally in convincing the public that radon can harm things they care about (namely, them, their friends, and their families), but that it is relatively simple to minimize the potential for harm. That millions of Americans have tested their homes for radon is promising, but there are common psychological and sociological threads that connect this segment of the population. Reaching everyone else will require messaging that is targeted and composed with great care so as to arouse appropriate levels of concern, self-efficacy, perceived social norms and attitudes about radon, and its mitigation (to name a few key constructs from the academic literature).
Of course, it is also important that scientific researchers continue their work to expand our knowledge about the health effects of radon (including those unrelated to lung cancer) and mitigation effectiveness. Knowing more precisely that certain radon levels will impact certain populations in certain ways and that certain mitigation strategies will have certain benefits to those populations can only strengthen arguments for radon testing, mitigation, and radon-resistant new construction.
Sincerely,
Sonny Rosenthal
United States