Radon risk communication issues: results of the all-russian public opinion survey

View or download the full article: 
PDF icon health-risk-analysis-2021-3-3.pdf
UDC: 
546.296: 316.654 (470)
DOI: 
10.21668/health.risk/2021.3.03.eng
Authors: 

A.A. Davydov, A.M. Biblin, D.V. Kononenko

Organization: 

St. Petersburg Research Institute of Radiation Hygiene after Professor P.V. Ramzaev, 8 Mira Str., St Petersburg, 197101, Russian Federation

Abstract: 

1,500 respondents took part in an Internet survey conducted in autumn 2020 in the Russian Federation. The survey was a part of the Radon Cross-Cultural Multilingual Public Opinion Survey (STEAM project) in the framework of the IAEA technical cooperation project RER9153. The survey was representative for the population of the country as per sex, age, and a region of residence. Random sampling error didn’t exceed 2.5 % for 95 % confidence interval. All respondents were given some information on radon that was as similar as possible in questionnaires published in languages spoken in all 22 countries that took part in the STEAM project; it was done in order to provide an opportunity to make further cross-country comparison of the survey results. The objective of the survey was to investigate what attitudes people had towards their health and towards radon as a possible health risk factor.

The survey revealed that in the Russian Federation people were rather poorly aware about radon. Only 31.7 % respondents stated that they were to a greater or lesser extent informed about radon. The level of knowledge about radon as a health risk factor was at a comparable level. For the majority of respondents, information about radon received from Rospotrebnadzor and its subordinate research institute formed the perception of radon as a risk factor that requires actions to mitigate its impact on health. Medical specialists turned out to be the most trustworthy source of information about health risks, first of all, family doctors and physicians in polyclinics; people also trusted medical prevention centers, Rospotrebnadzor, regional and local public health care authorities.

Results of the presented survey that was the first social survey focusing on the radon problem and conducted throughout the country can be used as a basis for planning communication strategies within the framework of both national and regional radon programs.

Keywords: 
radon, natural exposure, risk communication, radiation risk, radiation protection, social survey, risk awareness, National radon program, risk perception
Davydov A.A., Biblin A.M., Kononenko D.V. Radon risk communication issues: results of the all-russian public opinion survey. Health Risk Analysis, 2021, no. 3, pp. 29–41. DOI: 10.21668/health.risk/2021.3.03.eng
References: 
  1. WHO handbook on indoor radon: a public health perspective. Geneva, WHO Press Publ., 2009, 110 p.
  2. Radiologicheskaya zashchita ot oblucheniya radonom [Radiological protection against radon exposure]. In: M.V. Zhukovskii, I.V. Yarmoshenko, S.M. Kiselev eds. Мoscow, ICRP Publ., 2015, 92 p. (in Russian).
  3. Protection of the public against exposure indoors due to radon and other natural sources of radiation. IAEA Safety Standards Series No. SSG-32. Vienna, International Atomic Energy Agency Publ., 2015, 90 p.
  4. Radon: ot fundamental'nykh issledovanii k praktike regulirovaniya [Radon. From basic research to regulatory practice]. In: S.M. Kiselev, M.V. Zhukovskii, I.P. Stamat, I.V. Yarmoshenko eds. Moscow, FGBU GNTs FMBTs im. A.I. Burnazyana FMBA Rossii Publ., 2016, 432 p. (in Russian).
  5. Romanovich I.K., Stamat I.P., Kormanovskaya T.A., Kononenko D.V. Prirodnye istochniki ioniziruyushchego izlucheniya: dozy oblucheniya, radiatsionnye riski, profilakticheskie meropriyatiya [Natural sources of ionizing radiation: radiation doses, radiation risks, preventive measures]. In: G.G. Onishchenko, A.Yu. Popovа eds. Saint Petersburg, FBUN NIIRG im. P.V. Ramzaeva Publ., 2018, 432 p. (in Russian).
  6. Barkovsky A.N., Akhmatdinov R.R., Akhmatdinov R.R., Biblin A.M., Bratilova A.A., Zhuravleva V.E., Kormanovskaya T.A., Kuvshinnikov S.I. [et al.]. The outcomes of functioning of the unified system of individual dose control of the Russian federation citizens based on the 2019 data. Radiatsionnaya gigiena, 2020, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 110–119 (in Russian).
  7. Tirmarche M., Harrison J.D., Laurier D., Paquet F., Blanchardon E., Marsh J.W. [et al.]. ICRP Publication 115. Lung cancer risk from radon and progeny and statement on radon. Ann. ICRP, 2010, vol. 40, no. 1, pp. 1–64. DOI: 10.1016/j.icrp.2011.08.011
  8. Sources, Effects and Risks of Ionizing Radiation. UNSCEAR 2019 Report to the General Assembly, with Scientific Annexes. New York, United Nations Publ., 2020, 301 p.
  9. Makedonska G., Djounova J., Ivanova K. Radon risk communication in Bulgaria. Radiation Protection Dosimetry, 2018, vol. 181, no. 1, pp. 26–29. DOI: 10.1093/rpd/ncy096
  10. Lofstedt R. The communication of radon risk in Sweden: where are we and where are we going? Journal of Risk Research, 2019, vol. 22, no. 6. pp. 773–781. DOI: 10.1080/13669877.2018.1473467
  11. Cronin C., Trush M., Bellamy W., Russell J., Locke P. An examination of radon awareness, risk communication, and radon risk reduction in a Hispanic community. International Journal of Radiation Biology, 2020, vol. 96, no. 6, pp. 803–813. DOI: 10.1080/09553002.2020.1730013
  12. Khan S.M., Krewski D., Gomes J., Deonandan R. Radon, an invisible killer in Canadian homes: perceptions of Ottawa-Gatineau residents. Canadian Journal of Public Health, 2019, vol. 110, no. 2, pp. 139–148. DOI: 10.17269/s41997-018-0151-5
  13. Coreţchi L., Overcenco A. European Council and international recommendations on radon exposure risk control. Arta Medica, 2020, vol. 77, no. 4, pp. 103–106. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.4175168
  14. Perko T., Turcanu C. Is internet a missed opportunity? Evaluating radon websites from a stakeholder engagement perspective. Journal of Environmental Radioactivity, 2020, no. 212, pp. 106–123. DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvrad.2019.106123
  15. Bouder F., Perko T., Lofstedt R., Renn O., Rossmann C., Hevey D., Siegrist M., Ringer W. [et al.]. The Potsdam radon communication manifesto. Journal of Risk Research, 2019, no. 26, pp. 1–4. DOI: 10.1080/13669877.2019.1691858
  16. Hevey D. Radon risk and remediation: A psychological perspective. Frontiers in Public Health, 2017, vol. 27, no. 5, pp. 63. DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2017.00063
  17. Marennyy A.M., Kiselev S.M. The national radon program: Implementation experience and challenges for the future. Radiatsionnaya gigiena, 2019, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 97–108. DOI: 10.21514/1998-426X-2019-12-2s-97-108 (in Russian).
  18. Biblin А.М. Development of the model of radiation risk-communication with the public for the arrangement of the research. Radiatsionnaya gigiena, 2019, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 74–84. DOI: 10.21514/1998-426X-2019-12-1-74-84 (in Russian).
  19. Burd'e P. Sotsiologiya politiki. Obshchestvennoe mnenie ne sushchestvuet [Sociology of politics. Public opinion does not exist]. Sotsiologicheskoe prostranstvo P'era Burd'e. Available at: http://bourdieu.name/content/obshhestvennoe-mnenie-ne-sushhestvuet (20.08.2020) (in Russian).
  20. Champagne P. Making an opinion: a new political game. Polis. Politicheskie issledovaniya, 1992, no. 3, pp. 177–180 (in Russian).
  21. Yudin G.B. Oprosy obshchestvennogo mneniya [Public opinion polls]. Puti Rossii. Voina i mir: sbornik statei, Saint Petersburg, Nestor-Istoriya Publ., 2017, pp. 63–73 (in Russian).
  22. Davydov A.A., Kononenko D.V., Biblin A.M. Study of public opinion on the unknown risk factor: international comparative study of radon risk perception. Sotsiologiya i obshchestvo: traditsii i innovatsii v sotsial'nom razvitii regionov: sbornik dokladov VI Vserossiiskogo sotsiologicheskogo kongressa. Moscow, ROS, FNISTs RAN Publ., 2020, pp. 1499–1506 (in Russian).
  23. Davydov A.A., Biblin A.M., Kononenko D.V., Vasil'eva O.S., Khalova P.M. Organizatsiya vserossiiskogo sotsial'nogo oprosa po radonu [Organization of an all-Russian social survey on radon]. Sovremennye problemy epidemiologii, mikrobiologii i gigieny: materialy XII Vserossiiskoi nauchnoprakticheskoi konferentsii molodykh uchenykh i spetsialistov Rospotrebnadzora. In: A.Yu. Popova, A.K. Noskov eds. Rostov-na-Donu, OOO «MiniTaip» Publ., 2020, pp. 146–148.
  24. Weinstein N.D., Lyon J.E., Sandman P.M., Cuite C.L. Experimental evidence for stages of health behavior change: the precaution adoption process model applied to home radon testing. Health Psychology, 1998, vol. 17, no. 5, pp. 445–453. DOI: 10.1037/0278-6133.17.5.445
  25. Weinstein N.D., Sandman P.M. A model of the precaution adoption process: evidence from home radon testing. Health Psychology, 1992, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 170–180. DOI: 10.1037/0278-6133.11.3.170
  26. Kruger J., Dunning D. Unskilled and unaware of it: how difficulties in recognizing one's own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments. Journal of personality and social psychology, 1999, vol. 77, no. 6, pp. 1121–1134. DOI: 10.1037//0022-3514.77.6.1121
  27. Kahneman D. Thinking, Fast and Slow. New York, Farrar, Straus and Giroux Publ., 2013, 499 p.
  28. Keller C., Siegrist M., Visschers V. Effect of risk ladder format on risk perception in high‐ and low‐numerate individuals. Risk Analysis: An International Journal, 2009, vol. 29, no. 9, pp. 1255–1264.
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2009.01261.x
  29. Weinstein N.D., Klotz M.L., Sandman P.M. Promoting remedial response to the risk of radon: Are information campaigns enough? Science, Technology, & Human Values, 1989, vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 360–379. DOI: 10.1177/016224398901400403
  30. Sjöberg L. The different dynamics of personal and general risk. Risk Management, 2003, no. 5, pp. 19–34. DOI: 10.1057/palgrave.rm.8240154
  31. Kononenko D.V., Kormanovskaya T.A. Risk assessment for the population of the regions of the Russian Federation from constant lifelong exposure to radon. Mediko-biologicheskie problemy zhiznedeyatel'nosti, 2019, no. 1 (21), pp. 56–61 (in Russian).
Received: 
08.04.2021
Accepted: 
07.06.2021
Published: 
30.09.2021

You are here

Home