Effective social participation in radiation protection: a necessary approach to indoor radon programs in Brazil

Danila Carrijo da Silva Dias; Wanilson Luiz Silva; Nivaldo Carlos da Silva; Paloma França Machado; Adriano Mota Ferreira

doi:10.15392/2319-0612.2025.2869

Authors

Danila Carrijo da Silva Dias Brazilian Commission for Nuclear Energy (CNEN-LAPOC); Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP) https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8059-5646 (unauthenticated)
Wanilson Luiz Silva State University of Campinas-Institute of Geosciences (UNICAMP-IG)
Nivaldo Carlos da Silva Brazilian Commission for Nuclear Energy-Laboratory of Poços de Caldas (CNEN-LAPOC)
Paloma França Machado Brazilian Commission for Nuclear Energy-Laboratory of Poços de Caldas (CNEN-LAPOC)
Adriano Mota Ferreira São Paulo State University, Institute of Science and Technology-Postgraduate Program in Disaster Science

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.15392/2319-0612.2025.2869

Keywords:

Radon exposure, public engagement, health communication, behavioral change, community participation

Abstract

Effective social involvement in nuclear science and radiation protection remains a challenge, particularly in managing natural radiation exposure, such as radon gas – the largest contributor to human exposure from natural sources. This paper addresses the first Brazilian attempt to actively engage the public in a 6-month indoor radon monitoring campaign in Poços de Caldas, a region with high natural radioactivity. The study aimed to raise awareness and foster voluntary participation through a communication campaign, incorporating educational content, strategic messaging, and both virtual and in-person engagement. Despite a modest voluntary participation rate of 17%, the study found strong commitment among participants and demonstrated the effectiveness of local partnerships, digital tools, and community-driven efforts. The findings underscore the importance of tailored communication strategies and collaborative engagement to overcome barriers in public health initiatives, suggesting a need for culturally appropriate approaches to radon risk management in Brazil. Future work should focus on refining engagement strategies and assessing long-term impacts to ensure sustainable public participation in radon exposure control.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

[1] ABELSHAUSEN, B.; TURCANU, C.; PERKO, T.; POLZ-VIOL, C. Round table on stakeholder engagement in relation to radon exposures. Engage Concert, Brussels, 2018. Available at: https://www.engage-concert.eu/en/Publications/working-documents. Accessed: 20 May 2024.

[2] TURCANU, C.; PERKO, T.; MURIC, M.; et al. Societal aspects of NORM: An overlooked research field. Journal of Environmental Radioactivity, v. 244-245, 2022. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvrad.2022.106827.

[3] ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT. Challenges in nuclear and radiological legacy site management: Towards a common regulatory framework. OECD-NEA, 2019. Available at: https://www.oecd-nea.org/upload/docs/application/pdf/2020-09/7419-eglm.pdf.

[4] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY. Communication and Stakeholder Involvement in Environmental Remediation Projects. Nuclear Energy Series No. NW-T-3.5. International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, Austria, 2014a.

[5] RADO NORM PROJECT. Towards Effective Radiation Protection Based on Improved Scientific Evidence and Social Considerations – Focus on Radon and NORM. EU Funded Project, Grant Agreement Number 900009 from 13.05.2020 (EC -BfS), 2020.

[6] WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION. WHO Handbook on Indoor Radon: A Public Health Perspective. Edited by Zeeb, H.; Shannoun, F., p. 94, 2009.

[7] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY. Radiation Protection and Safety of Radiation Sources: International Basic Safety Standards. IAEA Safety Standards Series No. GSR Part 3. International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, Austria, 2014b.

[8] LOFSTEDT, R. The communication of radon risk in Sweden. Journal of Risk Research, 2018. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2018.1473467.

[9] GIRALDO-OSORIO, A.; RUANO-RAVINA, A.; VARELA-LEMA, L.; BARROS-DIOS, J. M.; PÉREZ-RÍOS, M. Residential radon in Central and South America: A systematic review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, v. 17, n. 12, p. 4550, 2020. Available at: https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17124550.

[10] DIAS, D. C. da S.; DA SILVA, N. C.; SILVA, W. L.; RODRIGUES, M. V. Indoor radon assessment in kindergartens: towards a national action plan. Brazilian Journal of Radiation Sciences, v. 9, n. 2, 2021. Available at: https://doi.org/10.15392/bjrs.v9i2.1234.

[11] ANTONIAZZI, B. N.; SILVA, N. C.; CUNHA, T. N.; OTERO, U. B. Poços de Caldas Plateau Project. Cancer Research and Natural Radiation – Incidence and Risk Behaviour, Minas Gerais State Health Secretariat: Belo Horizonte, Brazil, 2013.

[12] CAMPOS, T. F. C.; PETTA, R. A.; MALACA, A.; et al. O gás radônio doméstico e a radioatividade natural em terrenos metamórficos: o caso do município de Lucrecia (Rio Grande do Norte, Brasil). Revista de Geologia, Fortaleza, v.26, n.2, 2013.

[13] CAMPOS, T. F. C.; PETTA, R. A.; MALANCA, A.; et al. O gás radônio e a radiação natural em terrenos metagraníticos e pegmatíticos: o caso do município de Lages Pintadas (Rio Grande do Norte, Brasil). Revista de Geologia, Fortaleza, v.26, n.2, 2013.

[14] WITTE, K. Fear control and danger control: a test of the extended parallel process model (EPPM). Communication Monographs, v. 61, p. 113-134, 1992.

[15] WHITTAKER, A. Talk about cancer: environment and health in Oceanpoint. Health & Place, v. 4, n. 4, p. 313-325, 1998.

[16] HEVEY, D. Radon risk and remediation: a psychological perspective. Frontiers in Public Health, v. 5, n. 63, p. 1–5, 2017.

[17] PERKO, T. Radiation risk perception: A discrepancy between the experts and the general population. Journal of Environmental Radioactivity, v. 133, p. 86-91, 2014. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvrad.2013.04.005.