INDOOR RADON - A CASE-STUDY IN RISK COMMUNICATION

Two key questions have influenced the development and implementation o f the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) program to reduce the publ ic health risks of indoor radon-gas; the answers may also apply to oth er preventive health care programs. First, how can we best communicate risk? Risk communication research indicates that simple message, pers uasion, and prescriptive guidance will best encourage citizens to prot ect themselves from voluntary risks (within the control of the individ ual), such as radon. However, scientists expect technical information, logical and unemotional appeals, and detailed explanations of uncerta inty. An appropriate balance between the persuasive and the technical will encourage public action and assuage the scientific community. Sec ond, what environmental health care problems should we focus on? Publi c concern with involuntary risks imposed by an external force, such as hazardous waste dumps, drive our environmental health agenda. Consequ ently, because government decision-makers respond to public perception s and pressures, which they frequently support, the largest fraction o f the government's resources and the most aggressive protection progra ms are typically reserved for environmental health problems that pose involuntary risks. The experience of the EPA's Radon Program suggests that major gains in public health protection could be achieved through communication that effectively persuades people to accept personal re sponsibility for preventing voluntary risks, such as radon, and a more informed dialogue between the scientific community and the public con cerning national priorities for environmental health protection. If we cannot accomplish this improved dialogue, we will continue to spend e normous sums of money pursuing involuntary risks that promise a smalle r payoff for society than preventable voluntary risks, like smoking, f ailure to use seat belts, and radon exposure, which individuals can ad dress.