Skip to main content
Search

Radon Awareness Month 2026: Turn Awareness into a Reliable Safety System

Radon Awareness Month 2026 executive observance hero.
Greg Wahlstrom, MBA, HCM
Radon Awareness Month 2026 executive healthcare observance hero.

January 1–31, 2026 · Indoor environmental safety

Turn awareness into a reliable radon safety system.

Radon cannot be seen, smelled, or tasted. That makes it easy to place in the category of hazards that belong to someone else. Healthcare executives can change that pattern by connecting building testing, occupational health, patient education, housing partnerships, mitigation, verification, and executive oversight.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency identifies January as National Radon Action Month. This article retains the site’s approved title, Radon Awareness Month. The naming difference is administrative, not substantive. Both point to the same leadership opportunity: use January to make an invisible environmental risk measurable and manageable.

For a healthcare organization, radon is not only a homeowner education topic. It can affect owned and leased facilities, outpatient sites, administrative offices, staff workspaces, childcare and school partners, employee homes, patient households, and the communities a system is accountable to serve. The response crosses facilities, safety, occupational health, oncology, pulmonary care, primary care, community health, real estate, procurement, analytics, communications, and legal or regulatory review.

The 20 peer-reviewed sources reviewed for this article include 2026 work on lung-cancer burden, radon mapping, survey integration, residential exposure, school risk, biomarkers, testing inequities, occupational risk, and 2025 studies of educational facilities, communication, risk perception, and energy-efficiency tradeoffs. Earlier studies examine behavior change, co-designed communication, social determinants, rural primary-care pathways, and school testing. The evidence spans countries, populations, buildings, and study designs. It supports the operating principles presented here, but it does not establish a universal intervention effect, testing interval, or mitigation threshold for every site. Local action requires qualified technical, clinical, regulatory, legal, facilities, analytic, and community review.

The leadership signal

Radon risk is a detection and follow-through problem, not an information problem alone.

Radon is produced through the decay of uranium in soil and rock. It can enter buildings through foundation openings and accumulate indoors. Inhaled decay products can deliver alpha radiation to lung tissue. A 2026 scoping review described the path from exposure dosimetry to early biological effects and emphasized the variability of ambient measurements over time and place.6 The clinical implication is not that an individual’s disease can be attributed from a single building result. It is that a known carcinogenic exposure warrants a disciplined prevention pathway.

A 2026 ecological study in Central Germany examined residential radon potential alongside lung-cancer histology and stage. The authors treated smoking as an important synergistic exposure and cautioned that ecological analyses cannot assign individual exposure or causation.4 A global analysis of women’s tracheal, bronchial, and lung-cancer burden likewise placed radon within a combined environmental and behavioral exposure landscape.1 Leaders should preserve that context. Radon prevention complements tobacco prevention, lung-cancer screening, healthy-housing work, and clean-air strategy. It does not replace them.

The decisive operational fact is that geography and building characteristics can inform priority, but they cannot substitute for measurement in a specific building. A 2026 paper describing the 25-meter radon-potential map of Great Britain combined 561,000 measurements with geological information. That work shows the value of high-resolution mapping for targeting protection, while also showing the method and data burden behind a defensible map.2 A separate 2026 methods study proposed a process for combining heterogeneous radon surveys for exposure and health-burden assessment.3 Neither approach turns a map into a building result.

Testing is the entry point, not the outcome. A safety pathway must also verify where a device was placed, whether the measurement period and conditions were appropriate, who received the result, how an elevated or uncertain result was confirmed, who had authority and resources to act, whether a qualified mitigation strategy was completed, and whether post-mitigation testing showed that the control worked. A campaign that distributes kits without closing those loops can increase activity while leaving exposure unresolved.

Figure 1

Many social and structural factors were associated with radon testing rates in one Georgia analysis

Candidate variables examined in one county-level study
Bivariate screening resultVariablesShare of 104 candidates
p ≤ 0.013533.7%
0.01 < p ≤ 0.052019.2%
Not advanced4947.1%
Source: Saha et al., 2026.7 Population: 106,264 short-term test results from 73 Georgia counties above the state’s Fall Line, drawn from a larger 134,496-result dataset. Denominator: 104 candidate socioeconomic and public-health variables. Limitation: the counts describe statistical screening of county-level associations, not causal effects, intervention priorities, or individual risk. The 55 associated variables were highly intercorrelated.

The closed-loop pathway

Design the route from building inventory to verified control.

The safest way to use Radon Awareness Month is to test the operating system, not simply publish a fact sheet. Start with a defined building and population inventory. Include owned, leased, managed, and partner sites within the organization’s actual authority. Identify ground-contact and below-grade occupied spaces, work patterns, renovation or energy-efficiency changes, prior results, mitigation systems, leases, responsible parties, and records that cannot be located. A blank field should mean “unknown,” not “safe.”

Prioritization should combine local radon potential, building characteristics, time spent in the space, vulnerability, prior results, planned construction, and operational feasibility. A priority method helps sequence work. It should never be used to declare an untested building safe. The 2026 mapping and survey-integration studies show why data provenance, spatial resolution, measurement methods, and comparability matter when leaders combine information from different periods or programs.2, 3

A hospital facilities engineer and environmental health specialist place and document a radon detector in a bright lower-level mechanical space.
Illustrative image. Reliable testing requires an identified site, appropriate device and placement, documented conditions, a responsible owner, a result route, and a defined next action. The scene represents an evidence-informed facilities workflow, not a named organization or measured result.2, 3, 7, 9

Testing governance should specify approved methods, qualified personnel, placement rules, duration, seasonal or occupancy considerations, tamper controls, chain of custody when applicable, device identifiers, invalid-result criteria, and records retention. Short-term tests can support screening or rapid decisions. Longer-term or repeated measurements may better represent average conditions in some settings. The correct approach depends on the building, purpose, applicable guidance, and professional judgment. The article does not set a universal testing protocol.

Results need a receiving role and a clock. Define who reviews the measurement, how elevated or borderline results are confirmed, what immediate communication or temporary precautions are required, when a qualified mitigation professional is engaged, who approves cost and access, how leased-space obligations are handled, and what happens if a landlord, contractor, or department does not respond. An exception queue should show the building, result, age of the unresolved item, accountable owner, next action, due date, and escalation status.

Mitigation is not closed when equipment is installed. Closure requires documented commissioning or acceptance, post-mitigation testing, communication to affected people, correction of residual problems, and a plan for ongoing inspection and retesting. Building modifications, foundation work, ventilation changes, pressure relationships, energy upgrades, tenant turnover, or damage to a mitigation system can change conditions. A completed project should therefore enter a maintenance and surveillance inventory rather than disappear from the dashboard.

Figure 2

Proposed closed-loop radon safety process

  1. Inventory and assignOwner: facilities and real estateDefine sites, occupied ground-contact spaces, prior results, leases, responsible parties, and unknowns.
  2. Prioritize and planOwner: environmental health and safetySequence testing with local potential, building use, vulnerability, change history, and professional guidance.
  3. Test and verify qualityOwner: qualified testing programUse approved devices, placement, duration, documentation, validity checks, and protected result transfer.
  4. Interpret and communicateOwner: designated technical leadReview the result, explain uncertainty, define confirmation, notify affected parties, and start the response clock.
  5. Mitigate and manage accessOwner: facilities, property owner, and qualified contractorApprove scope, resolve tenancy or access barriers, install the control, and document exceptions.
  6. Confirm performanceOwner: independent or qualified verification roleComplete post-mitigation testing, correct residual issues, and communicate closure only when evidence supports it.
  7. Maintain and learnOwner: safety governanceInspect systems, retest under approved rules, track building changes, review delays, and improve the pathway.
Evidence basis: mapping, survey-integration, building, school, testing-behavior, and communication studies.2, 3, 5, 7, 9, 15 Applicability: an executive process model for local adaptation. Limitation: it does not replace technical standards, licensed expertise, laws, lease terms, clinical guidance, or site-specific testing and mitigation plans.

Measurement and interpretation

Treat every result as a decision with context, uncertainty, and ownership.

Radon concentration varies across buildings and can vary within the same building over time. Weather, pressure, ventilation, occupancy, foundation pathways, heating patterns, and measurement duration can influence a result. The relevant question is not whether the dashboard can display a number. It is whether leaders know what the number represents, whether the method was valid for the decision, and what action the number triggers under approved guidance.

Energy-efficiency work deserves particular attention. A 2025 study used indoor radon data to infer how home energy-efficiency measures affected air exchange. The authors described the possibility that reducing uncontrolled ventilation can change indoor-pollutant concentrations and emphasized the need to consider indoor air quality with energy performance.11 The study does not mean that efficiency improvements should be avoided. It means that capital planning should not optimize energy, pressure, moisture, ventilation, infection prevention, and environmental exposure in separate rooms.

Building decisions need a coordinated review. Before envelope work, renovation, space conversion, or ventilation changes, teams should ask whether radon testing is current and whether the project could alter pressure relationships or occupied lower-level use. After a material change, the safety plan should define whether retesting is needed. Facilities, infection prevention, occupational health, sustainability, design and construction, and environmental health may each see a different part of the same system. Executive governance must connect them.

Data integration also requires discipline. The 2026 survey-combination study explains why samples collected for different purposes, with different spatial coverage and methods, should not be pooled without evaluating comparability.3 Within a health system, a spreadsheet of “radon results” may mix short-term screening, long-term tests, post-mitigation verification, repeated measurements, leased-space certificates, and unverified owner statements. Those are not interchangeable records. A usable registry should preserve method, device, dates, location, units, conditions, purpose, responsible party, result status, response status, and source document.

Leaders should avoid false precision. A risk map can prioritize; it cannot clear a building. A screening test can initiate action; it may not characterize long-term exposure. An ecological cancer analysis can identify population patterns; it cannot diagnose an individual exposure history. A post-mitigation test can confirm performance at a point in time; it does not eliminate the need for maintenance. The dashboard should make those distinctions visible.

Communication, access, and equity

A test kit is not an equitable intervention when the next step is unaffordable or unavailable.

Awareness campaigns often assume a simple sequence: learn, test, mitigate. The evidence shows a more demanding pathway. A 2026 Georgia study analyzed 134,496 short-term results and linked county testing rates to demographic, housing, literacy, economic, social, digital-access, health, and well-being variables. Testing was lower in communities with several markers of disadvantage and higher where households had more resources, education, homeownership, and access.7 A 2025 Illinois analysis of 756 cities and towns also found disparities by income, race and ethnicity, and education.10 These ecological associations do not explain every household decision. They show why a voluntary, self-financed pathway can reproduce inequity.

Housing tenure changes the action pathway. An owner may decide to test but lack funds for mitigation. A renter may worry about retaliation, displacement, lease renewal, or whether the property owner will act. A family may receive a result without a trusted contractor, language support, temporary accommodation, or a clear way to verify the repair. Rural communities may face distance, limited contractor capacity, and fewer trusted information channels. Staff may live in one jurisdiction and work in another, each with different programs and rules.

Communication should be designed with the people expected to act. A 2023 design-thinking study in Belgium and Slovenia identified barriers and facilitators through participatory work on radon health communication.16 A 2025 randomized study across four European countries evaluated social-media and website strategies for information seeking and testing intentions.13 A 2021 study found that the effect of public-health information varied by age, sex, and profession.19 Communication is therefore a service component that should be tested for comprehension, credibility, relevance, and usability, not only reach.

A community health worker and housing navigator explain a radon test kit and next steps to a resident at a bright kitchen table.
Illustrative image. Equitable radon support connects understandable information with a test, result interpretation, housing or landlord navigation, qualified mitigation resources, financial help when available, and post-mitigation verification. The scene represents an evidence-informed community pathway, not a named organization or measured result.7, 10, 16, 17, 18

A healthcare organization can contribute without becoming a radon laboratory or mitigation contractor. It can establish a verified referral directory, align with public-health and housing partners, train selected staff to explain the pathway accurately, include radon within smoking-cessation and lung-health conversations when appropriate, help employees and patients locate recognized resources, and advocate for funding and protections that make mitigation possible. Any program should define role boundaries, conflicts of interest, privacy, documentation, and the limits of clinical advice.

Primary care can be a trusted doorway. A rural Appalachia study compared people who completed home testing with those who did not after receiving free long-term kits through a rural primary-care clinic.18 Another Kentucky ecological study examined social determinants and home testing across 54,683 observed values.17 These studies support the potential of healthcare touchpoints, but they do not justify pressuring patients or assuming a kit removes the barriers to completion and mitigation.

Figure 3

Qualitative fishbone of contributors to unmanaged radon risk

Evidence basis: testing, communication, risk-perception, social-determinants, rural-health, school, building, mapping, and occupational studies.2, 7, 8, 10, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 Method: qualitative synthesis, not a ranked causal analysis. Limitation: branch order and size do not represent prevalence, effect magnitude, or priority.

Workplaces, schools, and community facilities

Protect the buildings people do not personally control.

Public communication often focuses on detached homes. Healthcare leaders also control or influence workplaces and community settings where people spend substantial time but cannot independently test or mitigate. A 2026 occupational and environmental review focused on Utah and described policy and mitigation implications in a high-potential state.8 The paper is a regional review, not a facility-specific exposure assessment. It reinforces the need to connect worker protection with building governance rather than placing the burden on individual employees.

Workplace programs should define which sites are in scope, how leased properties are addressed, how employees report concerns, how results are shared without causing confusion or stigma, and who can approve temporary workspace or scheduling changes while a result is assessed. Occupational-health communications should explain what is known, what remains uncertain, what action is underway, and when the next update will occur. They should not diagnose personal exposure or promise that a single measurement answers every health question.

Schools and childcare settings deserve particular attention because children spend many hours indoors and have a long remaining lifetime. A 2026 systematic review examined risk factors for indoor radon exposure among schoolchildren and found substantial variation in measurement methods, duration, season, building characteristics, and geography across the literature.5 A 2025 cross-sectional study assessed educational facilities in Kermanshah and evaluated determinants, dose, and mitigation strategies.9 A 2021 review documented Canadian school testing efforts and the uneven policy landscape.20

These studies do not establish one testing method or interval for every school. They do show why a health system’s community-benefit, pediatric, school-health, or anchor-institution strategy can include practical support for healthy buildings. That support may involve public-health partnership, technical education, referral pathways, advocacy, or targeted grants. The organization should avoid making claims about a school’s safety without valid building-specific evidence and authorized interpretation.

Facilities governance should also consider spaces that fall between familiar categories: residential treatment, staff housing, hospice houses, rehabilitation facilities, long-term care, urgent-care sites, mobile-program storage, community partnership space, and administrative offices in converted buildings. The relevant question is not whether a location feels clinical. It is whether people occupy it, whether the organization has authority or influence, and whether risk-control responsibilities are clear.

The operating model

Put one accountable hub around distributed radon work.

Radon prevention is distributed by nature. Facilities teams know the buildings. Occupational health sees worker concerns. Clinicians hear questions about lung risk. Community-health teams know trusted partners. Procurement manages contractors. Finance controls capital. Real estate knows lease terms. Analytics holds fragments of the data. Communications shapes public understanding. Legal and compliance interpret obligations. A reliable system needs all of them, but it also needs one forum where unresolved work becomes visible and decisions can be made.

The hub should maintain the building and program inventory, approve shared definitions, review test quality, monitor elevated and overdue results, resolve access and funding barriers, verify contractor capacity, coordinate communication, and connect facility work with employee and community support. It should have authority to escalate a lease dispute, delayed capital approval, invalid test pattern, missing verification result, or recurring maintenance failure.

Governance should separate three levels of evidence. The first is a building-specific measurement collected under an approved method. The second is contextual evidence such as radon-potential maps, building characteristics, or population studies that helps prioritize and explain. The third is an operational signal such as an overdue action, incomplete record, or community barrier. Mixing those levels creates either false reassurance or unnecessary alarm.

Figure 4

Radon safety operating-system diagram

Evidence basis: the complete 20-source evidence set informed the relationships shown. Applicability: an executive relationship model for local adaptation. Limitation: the diagram does not assign statutory duty, establish clinical advice, certify providers, or replace facility-specific professional judgment.
Facilities, occupational health, public health, community, and data leaders review radon testing and mitigation signals in a bright hospital operations room.
Illustrative image. Radon risk becomes governable when facilities, worker health, clinical, community, contractor, data, and executive teams review the same inventory, definitions, deadlines, barriers, and verification evidence. The scene represents an evidence-informed leadership concept, not a named organization or measured result.3, 7, 8, 10, 11, 16

Decision-grade measurement

Measure closure, delay, and access, not only kits and impressions.

Campaign reach is an activity measure. Kits distributed are an activity measure. Buildings tested are a useful process measure. None establishes that an elevated result was resolved. The executive scorecard should connect the full pathway: eligible inventory, current valid testing, results requiring action, time to interpretation, time to mitigation, post-mitigation verification, ongoing maintenance, community navigation, and unresolved equity barriers.

Every measure needs a definition, numerator, denominator, data source, accountable owner, cadence, decision rule, and limitation. “Percent tested” is not interpretable unless the denominator identifies which buildings or households were eligible, why they were included, whether a valid result is current, and how leased or inaccessible sites are handled. “Percent mitigated” is not closed unless the measure states whether post-mitigation verification is required.

Stratification can reveal a system-design problem. Review by ownership status, site type, geography, language, referral channel, payer or benefit route, contractor region, and other locally appropriate factors. Small numbers, privacy, data quality, selection bias, and community interpretation must be governed. A difference is a question for investigation, not proof of cause or a label for a population.

Figure 5

Proposed executive radon safety scorecard

Illustrative measures requiring local definition, validation, and approval
DomainDecision question and possible measureNumerator and denominatorOwner and cadenceRequired limitation
Building inventoryDo we know which occupied sites require a radon decision?Sites with documented scope, owner, and status ÷ all eligible owned, leased, managed, or partner sitesFacilities and real estate, monthlyEligibility rules, acquisitions, closures, and missing lease data can change the denominator.
Valid testingWhich eligible sites have a current result collected under the approved method?Sites with current valid result ÷ eligible sites due for testingEnvironmental health and safety, monthlyDifferent methods, durations, seasons, and purposes must not be treated as interchangeable.
Response reliabilityAre results requiring action reviewed and assigned on time?Results acknowledged and assigned within the approved interval ÷ results meeting the action or review ruleTechnical lead, weeklyThe local rule must distinguish invalid, uncertain, confirmatory, and actionable results.
Verified mitigationDid mitigation produce documented control?Completed projects with acceptable post-mitigation verification ÷ mitigation projects due for verificationFacilities and qualified verifier, monthlyInstallation completion alone is not the numerator; site-specific criteria and timing apply.
Access and equityCan employees, patients, renters, and owners move from concern to a usable next step?People reaching the defined next step ÷ eligible navigation requests, stratified under approved privacy rulesCommunity health and benefits teams, monthlyReferral completion is not exposure reduction; selection, nonresponse, and resource availability affect results.
Contractor capacityCan the system test, mitigate, and verify without unsafe delay?Cases completed within approved interval ÷ cases ready for the serviceProcurement and facilities, monthlyCase complexity, access, geography, weather, and provider qualifications affect comparisons.
Maintenance and changeDo mitigation systems and building changes re-enter surveillance?Required inspections or retests completed ÷ systems or changed sites dueFacilities maintenance, quarterlyAn inspection is not a concentration measurement; different triggers require different evidence.
Evidence basis: all 20 reviewed studies informed the domains and cautions. Unit: locally defined sites, tests, results, projects, people, requests, or inspections. Denominator: specified separately for every row. Limitation: this table does not establish targets, legal requirements, clinical thresholds, provider qualifications, causal attribution, or universal reporting cadence.

The 90-day executive agenda

Use January to close one radon safety loop.

Choose one interface where the organization already sees uncertainty, delay, inequity, or fragmented responsibility. The focus might be an outdated building inventory, untested below-grade occupied areas, missing records after a merger, an unclear landlord pathway, result handoffs without acknowledgment, delays between an elevated result and approved mitigation, post-mitigation tests that are not tracked, or employee and patient referrals that end with a website link.

During days 1 through 30, name an executive sponsor and operating owner. Define the buildings, people, and partners in scope. Review a sample of complete and incomplete cases from initial concern through verified closure. Listen to facilities staff, employees, patients, renters, owners, community partners, primary-care teams, testing professionals, mitigation contractors, procurement, and legal or compliance reviewers as appropriate. Identify the failure state, baseline, safety requirements, policy constraints, capacity limits, and unowned exceptions. Do not begin with a dashboard. Begin with the real journey.

During days 31 through 60, co-design the future state. Specify the trigger, receiving role, minimum information, acknowledgment, time expectation, escalation, closure evidence, and balancing measures. Standardize the registry fields needed to distinguish building-specific results from contextual information. Test communications for comprehension and actionability. Simulate a leased-site dispute, an invalid test, a family unable to afford mitigation, a contractor delay, and a post-mitigation result that does not meet the approved criterion. Revise the workflow where the receiving team lacks authority or capacity.

During days 61 through 90, implement at controlled scale. Monitor valid testing, handoff acknowledgment, time to technical review, unresolved elevated or uncertain results, mitigation start, post-mitigation verification, worker or resident questions, navigation completion, workload, and exceptions. Review the pilot at least weekly. Compare the observed process with the baseline and the approved decision rule. A short pilot can establish whether a pathway is functioning. It cannot establish long-term cancer reduction or a universal mitigation effect.

At day 90, decide whether to adapt, expand, pause, or stop. Expansion should depend on verified process reliability, appropriate technical quality, manageable workload, clear accountability, and evidence that the service reaches people who face the greatest barriers. Publish what the organization changed, what it measured, what remains unresolved, and what it will do next. Honest uncertainty builds more trust than a celebratory claim that the data cannot support.

Figure 6

Gantt-style timeline for a 90-day radon safety cycle

Evidence basis: the complete reviewed evidence set informed the operating phases. Unit: one locally selected radon safety interface. Denominator: the defined eligible buildings, results, cases, or requests in the pilot. Limitation: the timeline is an implementation plan, not proof of reduced exposure, disease incidence, or causal effectiveness.

Questions for the board and executive team

Ask whether the organization can prove closure.

  1. Which owned, leased, managed, or partner buildings are in scope, and which sites still have unknown radon status?
  2. Who is accountable for the path from a valid result to confirmed mitigation and ongoing maintenance?
  3. How does the organization distinguish a risk map, a screening result, a confirmatory result, and post-mitigation verification?
  4. What happens when a landlord, contractor, department, or capital process does not act within the approved interval?
  5. Can employees, patients, renters, and owners reach a usable next step without unaffordable cost, language barriers, or digital-only navigation?
  6. Which building, occupancy, or energy-efficiency changes trigger a new radon review?
  7. What evidence supports a “closed” status, and how often are closed cases sampled for data quality?
  8. How are smoking, lung-cancer screening, occupational health, and healthy-housing programs connected without conflating their roles?

Radon Awareness Month is successful when the organization can answer those questions with evidence, not when January produces the highest number of posts. The enduring asset is a pathway that finds risk, assigns it, resolves it, verifies the control, and keeps the responsibility visible.

Continue the work

Lung Cancer Awareness Month 2026Build a reliable path from awareness to action. National Cancer Prevention Month 2026Build prevention into routine operations. World Lung Day 2026Turn a public campaign into accountable action.

Evidence reviewed

Peer-reviewed references, newest first

  1. Wang S, Zhao C, Lai H. Trends, inequalities, and 2030 projections of women’s tracheal, bronchial, and lung cancer attributable to air pollution, radon, and tobacco exposure. Frontiers in Global Women’s Health. 2026;7:1662451. doi:10.3389/fgwh.2026.1662451
  2. Daraktchieva Z, Ferreira A, Rees D, Lawley R, Ahmed RS. Making the Radon Potential Map of Great Britain: An Insight Into the Methodology. Indoor Air. 2026. doi:10.1155/ina/1075725
  3. Loret N, Bochicchio F, Antignani S, Ahmed RS. Comparing and Combining Heterogeneous Radon Surveys for Population Exposure and Health Burden Assessment: Procedure Proposal and Application to a Case Study. Indoor Air. 2026. doi:10.1155/ina/9734453
  4. Ernst P, Rachow T, Henn S, et al. Residential radon exposure and lung cancer histology and stage: a population-based ecological study in Central Germany. Journal of Cancer Research and Clinical Oncology. 2026;152(6). doi:10.1007/s00432-026-06524-7
  5. Yusuf RA, Mbonane TP, Rathebe PC. Indoor Radon Exposure Among Schoolchildren: A Systematic Review of Risk Factors. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2026;23(6). doi:10.3390/ijerph23060712
  6. Rathebe PC, Kholopo M. Radon-Induced Radiation Biomarkers: A Scoping Review from Exposure Dosimetry to Early Biological Effects on the Lung. International Journal of Molecular Sciences. 2026;27(10). doi:10.3390/ijms27104391
  7. Saha U, Singh K, Cooper D, Turner P, Cantrell R. Indoor Air Radon Testing Rate and Its Relationships with Various Socioeconomic and Public Health Factors in Georgia, USA. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2026;23(4). doi:10.3390/ijerph23040450
  8. Daramola O. Radon Exposure as an Occupational Hazard and Environmental Risk Factor for Lung Cancer in Utah: Assessment, Mitigation, and Policy Implications. Journal of Registry Management. 2026;53(1):4–7.
  9. Sadeghi S, Hajizadeh Y, Pirsaheb M, Teiri H, Sharafi K. Assessment of indoor radon exposure in Kermanshah’s educational facilities, and its determinants, health risks, and mitigation strategies. Scientific Reports. 2025;15:42886. doi:10.1038/s41598-025-27090-x
  10. Chen C-C, Killam LI, McComas AM, Jayawardene W. Closing the Radon Gap: A Socioecological Approach to Addressing Social Determinants and Disparities in Testing Rates Across Illinois Cities and Towns. Journal of Environmental Health. 2025;88(5):8–14. doi:10.70387/001c.154086
  11. Milner J, Chalabi Z, Davies M, Hutchinson E, Hsu S-C. Using Indoor Radon Data to Infer the Impact of Home Energy Efficiency Measures on the Air Exchange of Dwellings. Indoor Air. 2025. doi:10.1155/ina/1294218
  12. Vázquez-Herrero J, García-Orosa B, López-García X. Beyond Communication and Risk in a Post-Pandemic World: A Survey on Radon in Spain. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2025;22(11). doi:10.3390/ijerph22111667
  13. Apers S, Symons M, Vandebosch H, Perko T. From Attention to Intention: Evaluating the Effectiveness of Social Media and Website Strategies in the Radon Buster Campaign. Journal of Health Communication. 2025;30(10–12):488–504. doi:10.1080/10810730.2025.2562844
  14. Pacella D, Loffredo F, Opoku-Ntim I, Kitson-Mills D, Quarto M. A Comparative Propensity-Matched Analysis to Explore the Knowledge and Risk Perception of Radon in Ghana and Italy. Indoor Air. 2025. doi:10.1155/ina/4375905
  15. Maier A, Hayes E, Munday L. Using the precaution adoption process model and the health belief model to understand radon testing and mitigation: a pre-post quasi-experimental study. BMC Public Health. 2023;23:909. doi:10.1186/s12889-023-15752-2
  16. Apers S, Vandebosch H, Perko T, Železnik N. Co-Designing Communication: A Design Thinking Approach Applied to Radon Health Communication. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2023;20(6):4965. doi:10.3390/ijerph20064965
  17. Stanifer SR, Rayens MK, Wiggins A, Hahn EJ. Social Determinants of Health, Environmental Exposures and Home Radon Testing. Western Journal of Nursing Research. 2022;44(7):636–642. doi:10.1177/01939459211009561
  18. Stanifer SR, Rayens MK, Wiggins A, Gross D, Hahn EJ. Home Radon Testing in Rural Appalachia. Journal of Rural Health. 2022;38(1):251–261. doi:10.1111/jrh.12552
  19. Cholowsky NL, Irvine JL, Simms JA, et al. The efficacy of public health information for encouraging radon gas awareness and testing varies by audience age, sex and profession. Scientific Reports. 2021;11:11906. doi:10.1038/s41598-021-91479-7
  20. Shergill S, Forsman-Phillips L, Nicol AM. Radon in Schools: A Review of Radon Testing Efforts in Canadian Schools. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2021;18(10):5469. doi:10.3390/ijerph18105469

All references above were individually reviewed as peer-reviewed records. Dates reflect the indexed publication record. DOI links are provided where available. The bibliography intentionally does not name the subscription platform used for research.

Blog Attachment

Related Blogs