Thomas Coskeran

A critical comparison of the cost-effectiveness of domestic radon remediation programmes in three counties of England

Radon remediation programmes in domestic dwellings were carried out in five areas, from three counties of England, and the total costs obtained. A single company, which abided by the Code of Practice of the Radon Council of Great Britain, carried out the remediation. The dose savings from the programmes were calculated and used to estimate the number of lung cancers averted. The data obtained allowed the cost-effectiveness of the remediation programmes in each area to be calculated. The remediation programmes in three areas (Northants 2, 3 and North Oxfordshire) were cost-effective whereas those in two areas (Northants 1 and North Somerset) were not. To be cost-effective, the Northants I and North Somerset areas would need to increase the number of householders that carried out remediation, if they were over the UK Action Level. Health policy makers should concentrate their resources on communities in areas where there is a significant proportion of dwellings above the UK Action Level and where the number of properties being remediated is low.

The costs of radon mitigation in domestic properties

The paper examines the costs of mitigating radon levels in domestic properties using data from the radon-affected county of Northamptonshire in the United Kingdom. Cost-effectiveness of mitigation is measured in terms of the total costs per lung cancers saved per year by mitigation expenditures. The results obtained match those reported in published theoretical estimates for proposed national mitigation programmes. Mitigation in domestic properties is shown to be more effective in reducing lung cancers than a mitigation programme designed for National Health Service workplaces in Northamptonshire, when all householders discovering radon levels above 300 Bequerels per cubic metre (Bq m(-3)) are assumed to implement mitigation strategies. In the United Kingdom, however, as elsewhere, only a small percentage of those finding raised radon levels proceed to mitigation. This reduces the effectiveness of mitigation programmes in domestic properties to levels matching those in the National Health Service workplaces. The paper confirms findings in studies from Europe and the United States that a significant proportion of householders with radon levels between 200 and 300 Bq m(-3) do not implement remedial work. The paper concludes with a range of policy proposals based on the results obtained.

A critical evaluation of the cost-effectiveness of radon protection methods in new homes in a radon Affected Area of England

In the UK, building new homes in areas prone to radon gas is currently subject to regulations that require installation of radon-proof membranes. These membranes are not, however, the only way to protect residents of new homes against radons potential to cause lung cancer. Alternative regulatory regimes can be constructed that would achieve the same end. The purpose of this paper is to examine the cost-effectiveness of four alternative regimes and so determine if building regulations for new homes could be altered to protect residents from the effects of radon more cost-effectively than at present. In addressing this question, the paper also contributes to the wider debate on how best to reduce the effect on public health of exposure to radon. The measure of cost-effectiveness used, cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained, is determined from radon test results obtained in properties in Brixworth, England, UK, a radon Affected Area. Confidence intervals for the cost-effectiveness estimates are also derived using bootstrap techniques. The central estimates of cost-effectiveness range from 2870 pounds per quality-adjusted life-year gained for the most cost-effective of the alternative regimes to 6182 pounds for the current regime. These results suggest that alternative regimes may be more cost-effective in tackling the radon problem. A definitive assessment of the most suitable to adopt will require extensive negotiation between government departments, the construction industry, and other interested parties to ensure acceptance of any new regime. The paper offers suggestions for future research that should help in the process of identifying the key features of a new regulatory approach.

Lowering the UK domestic radon Action Level to prevent more lung cancers—is it cost-effective?

Case studies have shown that radon gas can accumulate within domestic properties at sufficiently high levels that it can cause lung cancer, and recent studies have suggested that this risk remains significant below the UK domestic Action Level of 200 Bq m(-3). Raised radon levels can be reduced by engineering measures, and it has been shown that domestic radon remediation programmes in UK Affected Areas can result in reduced risks to the population and can be cost-effective. We consider here the benefits and costs of the domestic radon remediation programme in Northamptonshire, UK, and consider the implications for that programme of reducing the UK Action Level below its present value. A radon remediation programme based on an Action Level above 200 Bq m(-3) will cost less and will target those most at risk, but will be less cost-effective and will lead to higher residual dose and greater risk of cancer in the remaining population. Reducing the Action Level below 200 Bq m(-3) will prevent more cancers, but at significantly higher cost. It will also be less cost-effective, because remediation of a significant number of houses with moderate radon levels will provide only a modest health benefit to occupants. Overall, a completed radon remediation programme of the type implemented in Northamptonshire is most cost-effective for an Action Level between 200 and 300 Bq m(-3). The implications for future health policy are discussed.

Driving commercial and industrial waste reduction in Queensland, Australia - The potential application of a UK waste minimisation club model

Queensland (QLD) is the second largest state in Australia with an area of 1,734,157 km2 and a population of some 4,132,000 (less than 20% of Australia’s total population). The majority of QLD’s population is located in the South East (SEQ) region around Brisbane and the Gold Coast with further population densities along the coast. SEQ is growing rapidly, with SEQ receiving over 1,000 new immigrants (both interstate and international) to the region every week, which is stimulating the housing, retail and commercial and industrial sectors. This growth in population and development is leading to an increase in waste arisings across all sectors. During 2005, QLD generated approximately 444,000 tonnes of commercial and industrial waste, with only 23,000 tonnes being recycled, equating to only 5% of the amount generated. By comparison, during 2005 the UK generated 83 million tonnes of commercial and industrial wastes of which approximately 45% was recycled. QLD has a suite of environmental and specific waste management legislation relating to the management of all waste streams which adopts the waste management hierarchy. The regulatory framework of any State or Country can if well designed drive sustainable waste management practices within the commercial and industrial sectors. Waste minimisation clubs (WMCs) were initiated in the 1990s in the UK in order to assist commercial organisations minimise their waste streams and identify re-use and recycling opportunities, including e.g. waste exchanges. WMCs have been an important demonstration opportunity for companies to grasp the benefits of the sustainable management of commercial and industrial wastes as well as the possible adoption of cleaner production through new technology. This paper reviews the trend of WMCs in the UK and discusses their potential application to QLD. It explores the drivers and barriers for such implementations within QLD, including the absence of a landfill levy and legislative barriers. The paper also discusses Australian government initiatives for improving resource efficiency within industry, and the benefits and limitations of these schemes. Case studies from the UK are then provided to ascertain the opportunities for possible WMC development in QLD