United States Office of Policy November 1988
Environmental Protection Planning and Evaluation
Agency Washington DC 20460
&EPA Region 3/OPPE/State of
Maryland Radon Risk
Communication Project:
An Evaluation of Radon Risk
Communication Approaches
-------
Region 3/OPPE/State of Maryland Radon
Risk Communication Project:
An Evaluation of Radon Risk Communication Approaches
Prepared by the
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation
Program Evaluation Division
November 1988
-------
Acknowledgments
This project was initiated by Stan Laskowski, Deputy Regional Administrator
for Region 3, but was a joint effort between Region 3, EPA Headquarters, and the State
of Maryland. Nancy Zahedi and Carol Deck were the Program Evaluation Division's
(PED) Project Managers, following Eileen Sheehan's move to Region 9. They were
assisted at various times by other PED staff, including Katherine McMillan, Patricia
Haman, Eileen Fesco, Tim Jones, Walter Simon, and summer interns Patricia Castillo,
Mary Kae Eckert, and Susan Mayer. Bill Desvousges and Hillery Rink of the Research
Triangle Institute also participated in the study through a Cooperative Agreement.
We would like to acknowledge the support and assistance of Jesse Baskerville,
Lew Felleisen, Bill Belanger, Lee Blackburn, and Kristen McNamara of Region 3.
Special thanks go to the Maryland Department of the Environment radon staff: Roland
Fletcher, Richard Brisson, and Leon Rachuba, who were extremely cooperative and
helpful despite the many other pressing demands on their time. We would also like to
acknowledge the valuable contributions of Ann Fisher, Steve Page, and other Advisory
Group members, whose participation made this project more relevant to the needs of
risk communicators.
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Introduction
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and States are faced with
the challenge of communicating to the public the importance of testing
homes for radon. Toward this end, a radon risk communication outreach
effort was undertaken in Maryland in the 1987/88 heating season by the EPA
and Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE). The purpose of this
effort was to develop communication materials and to test communication
methods that could be easily adapted by States and EPA Regional Offices.
Different outreach activities were conducted in two test communities
from January to March 1988. One community, Hagerstown, received media
outreach through radio and newspapers, and a radon insert in utility bills. A
second community, Frederick, received the same outreach as Hagerstown,
combined with a community outreach component. A third community,
Randallstown, served as a comparison community and received no special
communications. During this period, a local Washington, D.C. television
station (WJLA) also embarked on a major radon public awareness campaign
which overlapped with the EPA-MDE outreach activities. The effects of this
campaign were therefore also included in the analysis of the communication
efforts and impacts.
A pre-outreach and post-outreach survey were conducted of
approximately 1500 homeowners for each survey. This survey asked
respondents where they obtained radon information and looked at
respondents' radon awareness, knowledge, attitudes, and testing behavior.
Calls to the Maryland radon hotline were also monitored during this period
as an additional means of determining where people had heard about radon.
Findings
The principal findings of the study follow. More information on
recommendations for risk communicators interested in applying the lessons
learned to a communications program can be found in the Conclusions
Section, pages 63-66.
1. Differences Between Communities
Frederick—where people were exposed to news media from the EPA-
MDE Project as well as from WJLA, unsolicited mailings, and community
outreach activities—showed the greatest changes between the pre- and post-
outreach surveys with respect to awareness, knowledge, attitudes, and testing
behavior. Testing in Frederick increased by 9%. From a public health
-------
perspective this would conceivably represent only a small reduction in total
health risk if those facing radon risks take proper mitigating action.
However, from the perspective that EPA is trying to persuade the public to
test for radon and then mitigate when risks are high, this represents an
encouraging increase in testing within such a.short time period. Changes in
Hagerstown—where news media and unsolicited mailings were used—and in
Randallstown—the'comparison community—were substantially smaller.
2. Effects of News Media
People's exposure to news media presentations about radon accounted
for most of the radon awareness measured in the surveys. WJLA's campaign
was particularly effective in increasing knowledge, awareness, and testing.
Newspapers also were found to be a widely used source of radon information,
with radio a less frequently used source.
While a television campaign is not a realistic communication method
for EPA and States, due to the financial resources needed for an extended
campaign, newspapers are a low-cost source of information that can be very
effective in communicating about radon. Although radio does not reach as
many people as newspapers, it is also a method than can be easily and
inexpensively used to communicate about radon through public service
announcements.
3. Unsolicited Mailings
Unsolicited mailings—at least in the form of utility bill inserts—will not
produce the widespread exposure to radon information that news media will.
Nevertheless, such inserts are, for EPA and States, an inexpensive and -
relatively easy means of reaching a large number of people: The mailing also
seemed to reinforce other communications and successfully motivated some
people who had read it to seek additional information.
4. Community Outreach
Community outreach, which consisted of community presentations,
distribution of radon posters and flyers, and organization of community
events, contributed to the increased awareness, knowledge, and testing
observed in Frederick. While no individual element of this outreach had an
identifiable major impact, the combination of these activities was effective as
it helped increase informal communication about radon and personalize the
risks.
Elements of the community outreach were more resource intensive
than may be realistic for EPA and States. However, other groups, or
intermediaries, can be successfully used to carry out a community outreach
-------
communication strategy. The State of Maryland is working with the
University of Maryland Cooperative Extension Services to distribute radon
flyers, display radon posters, and use the radon slide show in community
presentations. Other service groups or organizations, such as the American
Lung Association, American Medical Association, and League of Women
Voters, can be tapped to communicate about radon. Involvement of local
officials can also be an effective communication device, particularly when
given local news coverage; for this project, local officials tested their homes
for radon.
5. Informal Communication Channels
Use of informal communication channels, such as talking to a friend,
relative or co-worker, appeared to be an important element in explaining why
certain individuals were more aware, knowledgeable, and concerned about
radon. Such informal channels help people to personalize the risk, i.e., feel
that they are potentially at risk from radon. Communication activities on the
part of the EPA or States which help increase informal communications and
personalization of the risk will be most effective in promoting greater
concern and testing for radon.
6. Impact of Respondent Characteristics
The characteristics of people surveyed appeared to have an influence
on their response to the message being presented. Education levels, income,
race, and sex showed some relationship to the indicators used to measure
project effectiveness.
Radon Materials Available
Radon materials available for use or adaptation by radon
communicators as a result of this Project are:
Five radio public service announcement scripts.
A 15-minute radon slide show (also available in video).
Four radon posters.
A radon flyer.
Requests for information on these materials should be addressed to:
Peyton Davis, Office of Radiation Programs, EPA, Washington, D.C. 20460,
(202) 475-9605.
-------
Table of Contents
I. INTRODUCTION 1
A. Origin of Project 1
B. Participants 1
C Project Goals 2
D. Main Messages 2
E. Outreach Approaches 3
F. Test Communities 4
G. Evaluation Design 4
H. Project Duration 7
H. DESCRIPTION OF OUTREACH METHODS AND THEIR
IMPLICATIONS 8
A. Selection of Methods 8
B. Media 9
1. Radio: What Was Done 9
2. Radio: How it Worked 9
3. Radio: Resources Needed 9
4. Newspapers: What Was Done 10
5. Newspapers: Resources Needed 10
C. Unsolicited Mailings: Utility Bill Inserts 11
1. Unsolicited Mailings: What Was Done 11
2. Unsolicited Mailings: How it Worked 11
D. Community Outreach 14
1. Distribution of Radon Posters and Flyers: What Was
Done 14
2. Distribution of Radon Posters and Flyers: How it
Worked 14
3. Distribution of Radon Posters and Flyers: Resources
Needed 17
4. Community Presentations: What Was Done 18
5. Community Presentations: How it Worked 18
6. Other Community Events: What Was Done 20
7. Other Community Events: How it Worked 20
8. Community Outreach: General Assessment 21
-------
IE. WJLA-TV RADON AWARENESS CAMPAIGN 22
A. Main Components of WJLA Campaign 22
B. Sale of Radon Test Kits 23
C Impact on the EPA-MDE Project 24
IV. EVALUATION OF RADON RISK COMMUNICATION METHODS AND
MATERIALS 26
A. Objectives of Evaluation 26
B. Surveys 27
1. Where-When-How They Were Conducted 27
2. Questionnaire 27
3. Sample Selection and Survey Procedure 28
4. Response Rates 28
5. Sample Description 29
C. Principal Findings 31
1. Differences Between Communities 31
2. Effects of News Media 31
3. Unsolicited Mailings 31
4. Community Outreach 31
5. Respondent Characteristics 31
D. Indicators of Outreach Effect 32
1. Awareness 33
2. Sources of Information 37
3. Knowledge 42
4. Attitudes 49
5. Testing 54
E. Summary 59
V. CONCLUSIONS 63
A. What is Available 63
1. Radon Communication Materials 63
2. Information About Communication Outreach Methods
Tested 63
B. What Was Learned 64
1. Community Approach 64
2. Unsolicited Mailings 64
-------
3. Media Approach
4. Information Communication Channels.
65
65
C. Final Thoughts on the Evaluation of Risk
Communications
66
VI. APPENDICES 67
Appendix 1:
Appendix 2:
Appendix 3:
Appendix 4:
Appendix 5:
Appendix 6:
Appendix 7:
Appendix 8:
Appendix 9:
Appendix 10:
Appendix 11:
Appendix 12:
Appendix 13:
Appendix 14:
Appendix 15:
Advisory Group Members
Survey Questionnaire Form
Hotline Survey Form
Summary of Risk Communication Literature and
Theory
Summary of Focus Group Findings
Radio PSA Scripts
Frederick News-Post Articles
Hagerstown Herald-Mail Print Ads
Sites of Radon Poster and Flyer Distribution
Frederick Community Group Presentations
Radon Slide Show Script
WJLA Radon Flyer
Graphs for Hagerstown and Randallstown follow-
up survey tester/non-tester performance on
knowledge questions.
Regression Model.
Categorization of Respondent Responses: Reasons
for Not Testing.
-------
List of Tables and Figures
Table 1: Summary of Community Exposure to Outreach Activities 6
Table 2: Demographics: Baseline and Follow-up Survey 30
Table 3: Changes in Awareness: Statistical Test Results 35
Table 4: Where Callers Obtained the Radon Hotline Number 40
Table 5: Knowledge About Radon by Community 45
Table 6: Attitudes About Radon 52
Table 7: Changes in Attitudes About Radon: Statistical Test
Results 54
Figure 1: Utility Insert 12/13
Figure 2: Radon Posters 15/16
Figure 3: Percentage of Respondents Who Had Seen or Heard About
Radon in Past Few Months 34
Figure 4: Percent of Respondents, by Educational Level, Who Had
Seen or Heard About Radon in Past Few Months 35
Figure 5: Percent of Respondents, by Income, Aware of Radon 35
Figure 6: Percent of Respondents, by Race, Who Had Seen or Heard
About Radon in Past Few Months 36
Figure 7: Percent of Respondents, by Sex, Who Had Seen or Heard
About Radon in Past Few Months 36
Figure 8: Baseline Survey - Of Those Respondents Who Had Seen
or Heard About Radon, Percentage Who Had Seen or Heard
About it in the Ways Below 37
Figure 9: Follow-Up Survey - Of Those Respondents Who Had Seen
or Heard About Radon, Percentage Who Had Seen or Heard
About it in the Ways Below 38
Figure 10: Of Those Respondents Who Had Seen or Heard About Radon,
Percent Who Saw Utility Inserts 40
Figure 11: Of Those Respondents Who Had Seen or Heard About Radon,
Percent Who Saw Poster or Attended Presentation 42
Figure 12: Percent of Frederick Respondents Who Answered the
Indicated Number of Questions Correctly 45
Figure 13: Percent of Hagerstown Respondents Who Answered the
Indicated Number of Questions Correctly 45
Figure 14: Percent of Randallstown Respondents Who Answered the
Indicated Number of Questions Correctly 46
-------
Figure 15: Number of Knowledge Questions Answered Correctly by
People Who Hadn't Talked to Someone About Radon 46
Figure 16: Number of Knowledge Questions Answered Correctly
.by Those Respondents In Frederick Who Tested/Didn't
Test for Radon 48
Figure 17: Percent of Respondents, by Education Level, Who Felt It Is
Important to Test Home for Radon 53
Figure 18: Percent of Respondents, by Sex, Who Agreed It Is Important
to Test.Home for Radon 53
Figure 19: Percentage of People in Baseline and Follow-Up Who Had
Tested for Radon 54
Figure 20: Percentage of Testers and Non-Testers in the Follow-Up
Survey Who Had Talked to Someone About Radon 55
Figure 21: Do Testers and Non-Testers Use Their, Basement as a Living
Area 56
Figure 22: Years of Education for Testers'and Non-Testers 57
Figure 23: Annual Income for Testers and Non-Testers 57
Figure 24: Age of Testers and Non-Testers 58
Figure 25: Why Respondents Had Not Tested: Changes Between
Baseline and Follow-Up Surveys ;... 60
-------
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Origin of Project
Naturally occurring radon gas has only recently emerged as an important
health concern. Since radon in homes is a problem that falls outside the sphere
of a conventional regulatory approach, the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) and State agencies are turning to risk communication techniques to
inform the public about the risks associated with radon gas in homes. EPA
recommends that everyone living in homes or lower floors of apartment
buildings test for radon so that they will be aware of the levels of radon in their
homes and can take remedial action, as needed, to reduce their risks. Available
evidence shows that relatively few homes (less than 5% in most areas) have been
tested for radon. This suggests the need for proactive communication strategies
so that people can make informed decisions about testing their homes for radon.
Early last year, EPA Region 31 decided to develop a radon risk
communication outreach effort for the 1987/88 heating season. Because the
Program Evaluation Division (PED) had already completed a study of EPA's use
of risk advisories,2 the Deputy Regional Administrator asked PED to participate
in planning and evaluating Region 3's radon risk communication effort.
B. Participants
The Project Team consisted of several PED staff members. They worked
closely with Region 3 staff from the Air Management Division and Office of
Public Affairs, and, under a Cooperative Agreement, with a team from the
Research Triangle Institute (RTI).
Because communication with the public about radon risks is primarily
the responsibility of State governments, a study such as this required the full
cooperation and support of a State radon office. The Maryland Department of the
Environment (MDE) agreed to participate in the project (in this report, the
project will also be identified as the EPA-MDE Project). The Pennsylvania
Department of Environmental Resources participated in an advisory capacity.
1 Region 3, based in Philadelphia, covers the States of Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, West
Virginia, Delaware and the District of Columbia.
^Evaluating and Improving EPA's Risk Advisory Programs. May 1987, Program Evaluation
Division, OMSE, OPPE. One of the principal findings was that, "With few exceptions, EPA programs have
not evaluated their risk communication efforts. There have not been systematic checks to learn if people
received, read, and understood materials EPA distributed."
-------
An Advisory Group representing several EPA Program Offices, Regions 2,
3, and 5, and the States of Maryland and Pennsylvania worked closely with the
PED Project Team. Members of the Advisory Group provided advice about the
design of the project, and reviewed plans, prototype materials, and other
documents. Their participation enabled PED to build on their knowledge and
ensured that the project would meet the needs of radon risk communicators.
EPA's Office of Radiation Programs played a particularly crucial role in assisting
in the development of communication materials. (See Appendix 1 for a list of
Advisory Group members).
C. Project Goals
The specific goals of the project were to:
- Produce and test innovative and cost-effective radon risk
communication methods and materials.
- Evaluate the effectiveness of these methods and materials.
- Share the results of the study with interested parties.
- Make available samples of the prototype materials for use
by EPA Regional Offices and States, with recommendations
for effective use.
An important element of this project was to not only develop outreach
methods and materials that would be effective, but that could also be easily
adapted and used by State agencies and EPA Regional Offices typically working
with limited resources, thus allowing for more proactive outreach. Toward this
end, the Project Team identified methods and materials that are relatively
inexpensive to produce and do not require a large staff to use.
D. Main Messages
The following messages were emphasized in all the outreach methods
and materials developed for this project:
- Radon is a serious health risk.
- You may be at risk and the only way to find out is to test.
- Testing is easy and inexpensive.
- If your home has a radon problem, it can be fixed.
-------
- The State of Maryland will provide information and a list of
testing companies through its toll-free radon hotline.
All materials attempted to personalize the message as much as possible,
i.e., present it in terms relevant to the target audience. For example, all the
materials stressed that high levels of radon had been found in Maryland. Where
possible (such as in radio scripts), communications mentioned specific
communities or regions in Maryland. One poster (see pages 15-16) listed the zip
codes of areas in Maryland where levels over 4 pCi/1 already had been reported.
E. Outreach Approaches
Combinations of three different outreach approaches—a media approach,
unsolicited mailings, and a community approach—were used and evaluated. The
main components of these approaches were:
- Media outreach in the form of radio public service
announcements and newspaper articles and
advertisements.
- A leaflet sent to homes through utility mailings.
- Community outreach, consisting of presentations using a
radon slide show; placement of radon leaflets and posters in
libraries, supermarkets, small businesses and other public
places; and other community events.
To provide a model for collaboration with organizations that could
supplement State resources, the Project Team also sought to work with groups
such as the American Lung Association (ALA), American Medical Association
(AMA), civic groups, and local leaders, whenever possible.
At the same time that the EPA outreach was underway, a Washington,
D.C. television station, WJLA, independently embarked on a major radon public
awareness campaign. This campaign combined a month-long television series of
special TV reports and news stories on radon, with the sale of radon test kits in
local supermarkets at a reduced price. The effects of this campaign surpassed all
expectations and overshadowed many of the EPA-MDE outreach activities,
making the evaluation of the outreach problematic. A description of the WJLA
campaign is included in this report; the Project Team has attempted to separate
the effects of the TV campaign from those of the EPA-MDE Project where
possible.
-------
F. Test Communities
Radon communication methods and materials were tested in two
communities in Maryland: Frederick and Hagerstown. A third community,
Randallstown, served as a comparison and did not receive any radon
information through the EPA-MDE project (see Map 1 for location of
communities). Hagerstown received media coverage and unsolicited mailings;
in Frederick, these two approaches were combined with community outreach.
The choice of these three communities was based on:
- Indications of elevated radon levels in all three areas.
- A high percentage of owner-occupied, single-family homes.
- Similarities in socio-economic characteristics of residents,
including education and income levels.
Frederick, with a mixture of urban and rural households, is located 35
miles from Washington, D.C. Given its proximity to Washington, Frederick is
increasingly taking on the characteristics of a suburb of that city.: Hagerstown is
located 25 miles northwest of Frederick. It has a very similar population
composition, though not the same ties to Washington, D.C. The comparison
community, Randallstown, is a well-to-do suburb of Baltimore, located 15 miles
from the city. Table 1 summarizes each community's exposure to the EPA-MDE
Project as well as WJLA outreach activities.
G. Evaluation Design
One major goal of the project was to evaluate the effectiveness of the
radon risk communication materials and methods. A questionnaire was
designed to measure individuals' radon awareness, knowledge, attitudes, and
behavior. Pre- and post-outreach telephone surveys'were conducted in the two
test communities and the comparison community. Because of the limited
duration of the outreach activities, it was not expected that a large proportion of
people learning about radon through the EPA-MDE Project would-test their
homes during this period. Since the radon risks most homeowners face are long-
term, homeowners have little or no incentive to test immediately. Radon
testing is something thaMs easily put off. Therefore, evaluating the effectiveness
solely on the basis of testing would not have been an accurate measure of the
effects of the Project. Accordingly, questions about awareness, knowledge, and
attitudes were built into the survey, in addition to questions about testing
behavior. (See Appendix 2 for a copy of the questionnaire).
In addition to the survey, the MDE kept a log of all calls received on its
radon hotline during the outreach period. The MDE had established the hotline
-------
MAP 1: MAP OF MARYLAND
Pennsylvania
SCALE
10 20 30 40 50 Miles
I I I I I
HAGERSTOWN
RANDALLSTOWN
o
Oi
-------
TABLE 1:
SUMMARY OF COMMUNITY EXPOSURE TO OUTREACH ACTIVITIES
COMMUNITY
EPA-MDE OUTREACH METHOD
WJLA RECEPTION
FREDERICK
Radio PSAs
Newspaper Articles
Utility Bill Inserts
Radon Posters and Leaflets
Distribution
Radon Awareness Week
Local Officials Test Homes
Radon Presentations
WJLA reception good.
Two Safeway supermarkets
in the town of Frederick carry
radon test kits.
HAGERSTOWN
Radio PSAs
Newspaper Print Ads
Utility Bill Inserts
Residents with an antenna can
view WJLA. but can choose
between D.C., Baltimore and
Pennsylvania stations.
Nearest Safeway supermarket
carrying radon kits is in
Frederick.
RANDALLSTOWN
No special EPA-MDE outreach
WJLA reception is good for
residents without cable TV,
however, residents are more
likely to watch the local
Baltimore station instead.
No radon test kit sales at
Safeways in the area.
-------
in 1986 in response to a large upsurge in calls resulting from news coverage of
radon in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area. The radon office answers an
average of 1200 radon-related calls a month. The office is equipped to handle up
to two calls at a time on its toll-free number.
Callers requesting general radon information are mailed copies of two
EPA publications, Citizen's Guide to Radon, Radon Reduction Methods, and a
list of radon testing firms in Maryland and surrounding States. Staff members
use a special form to record specific questions or concerns a caller might have,
and more time-consuming calls are returned on the office's regular telephone
line.
For the purpose of this project, the Project Team wanted to keep a record
of where callers had heard about radon and obtained the hotline number, since a
major message of the outreach was that additional information could be obtained
through that number. A special form was developed (see Appendix 3) and each
staff member used it for radon-related calls, both on the hotline and regular lines.
This allowed for an additional way to determine which outreach materials
motivated people to seek additional information.
H. Project Duration
The Radon Risk Communication Project began in July 1987 with the
development of the project design and risk communication materials. Outreach
took place during the 1987/88 heating season, from January to April 1988. Pre-
and post-outreach surveys were conducted in December 1987 and April 1988,
respectively. Analysis of the results was timed so that this report could be
available before the 1988/89 heating season.
-------
8
II. DESCRIPTION OF OUTREACH METHODS AND THEIR
IMPLEMENTATION
This section describes the outreach methods selected, why they were
chosen, how they were implemented, their resource requirements, and the
problems encountered.
A. Selection of Methods
A combination of outreach approaches was chosen because previous
studies have indicated that maximum effectiveness is achieved by using more
than one communication approach.3 Use of mass media can be very effective at
creating awareness of an issue, but is less effective in educating and motivating
individuals. Some form of more personal interaction, used in conjunction with
media exposure, usually is needed to elicit changes in attitude and behavior
about risks.
Focus groups—small group discussions designed to provide qualitative
insights—conducted during the early phase of the project showed the importance
of "personalizing" the risk of radon. People who already had tested their homes
for radon perceived it as a threat to themselves and their homes, and had spoken
to friends and family about radon.4 Given that States and EPA do not have the
resources to meet with every citizen who may be at risk from radon, one
question this project tried to answer is how "personalized" interaction must be to
be effective. That is, is it sufficiently effective to reach people in their homes
through a mailing, in addition to a media effort, or is face-to-face contact
necessary?
After selecting and developing the outreach methods and materials based
on existing risk communication theory, the Project Team pre-tested them. Pre-
testing is a technique used during the development of communication materials
to ensure that they are understood by, and relevant to the concerns of, the target
audience. The materials for this project were pre-tested with citizens during
focus group sessions and by intercepting people at a shopping mall to solicit their
reactions. Many useful insights were gained as a result of the pre-tests and were
used to develop final versions of the communication materials.
3See Appendix 4 for a summary of the risk communication literature and theory.
4See Appendix 5 for a summary of the focus group findings on why some individuals test for radon
and others do not.
-------
B. Media
A media approach was included in the communication strategy to
generate broader exposure and awareness. Television is the most effective
medium for raising awareness on a large scale, but it is also the most costly. The
radio and newspaper media were targeted as the most accessible to State radon
offices.
1. Radio: What Was Done
The Project Team developed a series of radio public service
announcements (PSAs) with five different themes (see Appendix 6). These were
distributed to three radio stations in Hagerstown and two in Frederick. The MDE
Public Affairs Office sent a new PSA script and tape to the radio stations every
two weeks. Three of the scripts were announcer-read, while two contained
dialogue.
2. Radio: How it Worked
Radio stations do not keep records of when, or how many times, a
particular PSA is played. The radio station directors indicated that most of the
PSAs were played "often"; however, more specific information was not available,
and it was not possible to assess the amount of radio air time achieved.
Four of the five radio stations indicated that their announcers read from
the script; only one used the tapes. The two 30-second PSAs that included
dialogue were not played by the stations using announcer-read scripts. At least
one of these stations reused the announcer-read scripts in lieu of the dialogue
tapes.
3. Radio: Resource Needs
The most costly aspect of developing the radio PSAs was producing the
tape recording. The Project Team's experience indicates that this expense can be
avoided by providing written scripts. Distributing the PSAs to the radio stations
required some initial contacts by the MDE Public Affairs Officer, but did not
require much time commitment.
Radio PSAs appear to be a low-cost activity in terms of dollars and staff
time. Use of scripts also allows for greater personalization of the message and
targeting of specific communities. For example, some of the radio PSAs
emphasized that radon had been found in Frederick or Hagerstown.
However, radio PSAs are not likely to result in widespread exposure to
the message, given the lack of control over when they are aired and the
likelihood that people may not pay any attention to the message. One method of
-------
10
ensuring more radio air time and controlling the times when scripts are read is
through paying for such air time. Paying for radio air time is considerably less
expensive than paying for the same television air time; while fewer individuals
will be reached through radio than TV, the cost is more reasonable given the
budget of State radon programs.
Radio interviews are another method of obtaining air time. One radio
interview was conducted as part of this project in Frederick on January 18th
during Radon Awareness Week (see "Community Outreach"). Such interviews
are not difficult to arrange, but do require some advance work by staff, though no
out-of-pocket costs.
4. Newspapers: What Was Done
The Project Team arranged for newspaper exposure as another element of
the media outreach. A number of newspaper articles appeared in Frederick as a
result of this project. These articles primarily covered activities organized in that
city as a result of the community outreach component of the project, such as
Radon Awareness Week, local officials testing their homes, and community
presentations. Of eight articles appearing in the Frederick News Post between
January and April 1988, five were a direct result of the project. (See Appendix 7
for copies of the newspaper articles).
In Hagerstown, the Project Team arranged for newspaper exposure
through free ads. The Hagerstown Herald-Mail reduced the four posters
developed for the community outreach component of the project to 1 /4 page size
and ran one each week during the month of February. (See Appendix 8 for
copies of the newspaper ads). Independent of the project activities, four radon
articles also appeared in the Herald Mail between January and April 1988.
No special efforts were made to encourage newspaper coverage of radon
in Randallstown, the comparison community. During this same period, a total
of five radon articles appeared in the Baltimore Sun.
5. Newspapers: Resources Needed
Arranging for newspaper exposure in the form of articles and print ads
was easy to do. For news coverage, it is often sufficient to alert a local reporter
about specific events underway. The Herald-Mail was also receptive to including
free ads. The Frederick News-Post, on the other hand, was not interested in
printing such,ads. Individual papers will vary in their policies regarding public
service advertisements; however, it may be easier to obtain free advertising space
in local newspapers and people may pay attention to the ads there even if they
would ignore them in their "big city" paper where so many other items compete
for attention.
-------
11
C. Unsolicited Mailings: Utility Bill Inserts
The second major method of outreach was to provide unsolicited printed
information that reached citizens in their homes. Like a media approach, such
mailings can reach a large number of people at a relatively low cost per person;
like a community outreach approach, unsolicited mailings can provide more
detailed and more personalized information than a public service
announcement.
1. Unsolicited Mailings: What Was Done
Since neither EPA nor State radon programs have the resources to send
unsolicited mailings to all homeowners, the Project Team looked for a low-cost
option. Utility bill inserts were selected as a means of exploring how well
unsolicited printed information could replace the more resource-intensive
community outreach approach. Potomac Edison, the electric utility that serves
both Frederick and Hagerstown, agreed to include a leaflet developed by the
Project Team in its utility bills (see Figure 1).
2. Unsolicited Mailings: How it Worked
Making this arrangement with Potomac Edison was very straightforward
and required little effort. A camera-ready copy of the six-panel leaflet was sent to
Potomac Edison after the initial telephone contacts. Potomac Edison printed a
slightly reduced version of the leaflet to fit its billing envelopes. This was
included in bills sent to approximately 125,000 households in Western Maryland
during the February and March 1988 billing cycle.5 Potomac Edison needed
approximately one to two months' lead time to arrange the mailings.
Although Potomac Edison was the only utility company involved in the
project, the Baltimore Gas & Electric Company (BG&E) was also contacted. BG&E
expressed willingness to include radon inserts in their utility bills, but this was
not pursued since Randallstown was the comparison community and is served
by BG&E.
States interested in adapting the utility insert used for this Project can do
so fairly easily. The insert would need to be modified to include State-specific
information in place of the specific references to Maryland. The cost would be
approximately $25-50 to make the State specific modifications and prepare
5The utility company has a two-month billing cycle, i.e., each customer receives a bill every two
months.
-------
FIGURE 1: UTILITY INSERT
Js YOUR HOME SAFE?
Many Maryland residents are concerned
about elevated levels of radon in their com-
munity. They are testing their homes for
this potentially harmful gas.
The Maryland Department of the
Environment has produced this brochure to
provide residents with important informa-
tion about radon.
IS RADON?
Radon is a radioactive gas. You can't see,
smell, or taste it. Radon occurs naturally in
all soils. In outdoor air, radon gas is diluted
to low levels. When radon gas seeps into
homes, it can build up to potentially danger-
ous levels.
RADON A HEALTH HAZARD?
Yes. Scientists estimate that 5,000 to 20,000
lung cancer deaths a year in the United
States may be caused by radon gas. This
would make radon the second leading cause
of lung cancer in the United States.
Radon is one part of a long chain of radio-
active decay. As radon decays, its byproducts
may get trapped in your lungs and release
radiation. There is
scientific evidence
that this radiation
can damage lung
tissue.
This lung tissue
damage can eventu-
ally lead to lung
cancer. The higher
your radon level,
and the longer you
are exposed to it, the greater your risk.
s RADON FOUND IN MARYLAND?
Yes. Homeowners in many counties and
Baltimore city have reported elevated levels
of radon. We encourage you to test your
home for radon. The only way to know for
sure whether your home has a radon
problem is to test for radon now.
Some Maryland
homes have radon
levels higher than
200 picocuries per
liter (pCi/1) of air.
(Picocuries per liter is a
measure of radiation.) These levels are 50
times higher than the action guidelines set
by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
By spending your lifetime in a house with
radon levels of 10 pCi/1 you have a lung
cancer risk similar to smoking nearly a
pack of cigarettes a day.
RADON
Is Your Home Safe?
Test Now and
Be Sure
-------
H
OW DOES RADON ENTER MY HOME?
Radon can enter your home through cracks
in your home's foundation, dirt floors, pores
in block walls, floor drains, and sumps.
While radon usually enters through the
basement or lower floors, it also circulates
throughout your entire house.
Common Radon Entry Points
3locks
Cracks in Foundation
Radon levels can vary a lot even in the same
neighborhood. Mostly, radon levels depend
on how. easy it is for the radon to get into
your home and the amount of radon in the
ground under your home.
"OW DO I TEST MY HOME?
Because you can't see radon, you must use a
radon detector to measure the levels in your
home. It is a simple do-it-yourself home test
that comes with easy-to-follow instructions.
When the test is completed, you send the
detector back to the testing company, which
analyzes it and sends you your results.
The two most common types of radon
detectors are the charcoal detector and the
alpha track detector.
Charcoal detectors cost as little as $12 each
and the alpha track detectors begin around
$25 each. These prices include the test itself
and also the test results which will be sent
to you.
Charcoal
Detector
Recommended
Test Period:
2 to 7 days
Approximate
Cost: $12 to $25.
Alpha Track Detector
Recommended Test Period:
3 to 12 months
Approximate Cost:
$25 to $50.
Either type of test can be used to measure
radon levels in your home. The shorter test
can provide useful screening information.
Generally, however, the longer the test
period, the more accurate the reading.
OW CAN I GET A RADON DETECTOR?
Radon detectors are available in some
local hardware stores. You can also call
Maryland's RADON HOTLINE
(1-800-872-3666) for more information and a
list of mail-order radon testing firms. Some
companies offer a toll-free number and you
can charge the detector on your credit card.
FIND A RADON PROBLEM?
Many homeowners in Maryland have found
permanent, cost-effective solutions to their
radon problem. Some homeowners have
successfully reduced their radon levels
themselves for as little as $100. More
difficult problems are more expensive to
fix and may require a contractor. Call the
RADON HOTLINE (1-800-872-3666).
We can give you advice and send you
information on how to reduce your radon
level.
fi OR MORE INFORMATION
CO
Call: RADON HOTLINE: 1-800-872-3666
You will receive a list of radon testing
companies and these U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency booklets:
A Citizen's Guide to Radon: What It Is and
What You Can Do About It
Radon Reduction Methods:
A Homeowner's Guide
Or write to:
RADON HOTLINE
Maryland Department of the Environment
Center for Radiological Health
201 West Preston Street
7th Floor Mailroom
Baltimore, MD 21201
-------
14
camera-ready copy. This does not include staff time required to make the
modifications and obtain anynecessary approvals.
D. Community Outreach
Community outreach was conducted over approximately ten weeks in the
city of Frederick by State of Maryland staff. The community outreach
components of the project consisted of distribution of radon posters and leaflets,
presentations to community groups, and the organization of a number of
community events that publicized radon risks and encouraged radon testing.
This outreach supplemented the media outreach and unsolicited mailings as a
means of personalizing radon risk communication messages.
1. Distribution of Radon Posters and Leaflets: What Was Done
Four radon posters were developed by the Project Team (see Figure 2),
each of which targeted a different audience and aimed at raising awareness and
encouraging people to seek additional information on radon. The posters,
together with the leaflets developed for the utility bill inserts, were distributed by
the Project Team to local businesses and other places in Frederick (see Appendix
9 for the sites where radon posters or leaflets were displayed). Two colors were
used in the posters to make them more eye-catching, with "radon" highlighted
in red in the titles.
2. Distribution of Radon Posters and Leaflets: How it Worked
The Project Team contacted some local businesses by telephone, but
because most store managers wanted to see the materials before they would agree
to display them, it was just as efficient to visit stores without calling beforehand.
Such visits appeared to be very effective in obtaining cooperation. A personal
visit from a representative of the Maryland Department of the Environment
seemed to add importance and credibility to the Project. It was also more difficult
for a store manager to refuse when asked for cooperation during a personal visit
rather than over the telephone. In general, individuals contacted were interested
in helping a good cause, especially when it required little effort and no cost.
Supermarkets/public libraries, pharmacies, and hardware or home
improvement stores are good places for distributing information because people
are already accustomed to getting information there from bulletin boards and
brochure stands. Also, because of the WJLA/Safeway campaign (see Section III),
many people now associate supermarkets with radon kits. Some advance work is
needed, however, to place information in national or regional chains, since store
-------
FIGURE 2: RADON POSTERS
IS YOUR CHILD SAFE
FROM RADON?
You wouldn't let your child smoke a pack a day.
Yet radon gas in your home can be just as dangerous.
TEST YOUR HOME NOW.
Call the State of Maryland's Radon Hotline.
1-800-872-3666
fOU CARE ABOUT
YOUR HEALTH
You Watch
What You Eat
You Exercise
You Stopped
Smoking
So why haven't you tested
your home for radon?
D It's easy D Ifs inexpensive
Call the State of Maryland^ Radon Hotline.
1-800-872-3666
-------
I
S YOUR HOME SAFE
FROM
D Your home may be hazardous to your health.
D Radon is a radioactive gas that can cause
lung cancer.
D A radon test is easy and can cost less than $25.
Test your home now and be sura
Call the State of Maryland^ Radon Hotline.
1-800-872-3666
20646 20814 20855 20904 21104 21727
20707 20815 20856 20906 21117 21740
20711
20816 20857 20910
21131 21754
21133 21755
20714 20817 20861 20979
20744 20832 20868 21029 21136 21764
20754 20833 20871 21030 21146 21769
20759 20837 20872 21035 21152 21770
20760 20838 20874 21043 21153 21771
20769 20841 20877 21044 21157 21773
20770 20842 20878 21045 21204 21776
U 20850 20879 21046 21285 21783
NSAFE RADON LEVELS
20772 20851 20895 21048 21401 21784
HAVE ALREADY BEEN '""
20777 20852 20901 21084 21701 21793
FOUND IN HOMES WITH "794
20781 20853 20902 21093 21716 21797
THESE MARYLAND 21723 21354
20784 20854 20903 21102
ZIP CODES
Test your home now and be sura
Call the State of Maryland's Radon Hotlina
1-800-872-3666
-------
17
managers often must receive permission from their headquarters offices to
distribute information or display posters. The project was most successful with
stores in which the manager was concerned about radon and with owner-
operated businesses.
Posters and/or leaflets were also placed in public buildings in Frederick
and in businesses such as dry cleaners, hair salons, and convenience stores. In
general, it was necessary to speak with the store manager or owner to ensure
successful placement of materials. Stores that do not exhibit merchandise in
their windows (e.g., dry cleaners) are much more willing to display posters than
stores that do.
The Project Team also attempted, but without success, to place posters or
leaflets in physicians' offices in Frederick. Some physicians cited the large
quantity of health information they receive already as a reason for their
unwillingness. In general, the physicians in Frederick did not express much
concern about the risks of radon and its presence in their community. Some said
they did not want to "panic" their patients; others did not want patients to ask
questions they did not feel competent to answer. The Maryland Chapter of the
American Medical Association (AMA) printed a short paragraph in its monthly
Magazine about the availability of radon information through this Project. Only
one physician responded. This experience suggests that involving physicians in
radon risk communication efforts will require working closely with State and
local chapters of the AMA to educate them about radon risks.
3. Distribution of Radon Posters and Leaflets: Resources Needed
The development and distribution of radon posters and leaflets were very
resource intensive. The cost of developing each poster was approximately $1500
plus the cost of reproduction. Development of the radon leaflets was less costly
but still a substantial expense. The leaflets, however, were used for both the
utility bill inserts and for distribution with the radon posters in Frederick. State
radon offices interested in adapting the posters and leaflet developed for this
Project would find adaptation costs much lower than the initial development
costs. Reproduction of the posters for this project cost from $3-8 per poster
depending on size, colors, and paper, and reproduction of the leaflets cost
approximately $60 per thousand.
Staff time was required for travel to the community and personal visits to
the various locations. Follow-up visits were also necessary to rotate posters and
replenish the supply of leaflets. Some of these activities could be combined with
visits to the community for other purposes, such as making a presentation or
meeting with homeowners.
-------
18
4. Community Presentations: What Was Done
Radon presentations to local groups were another important component
of the community outreach. These presentations allowed for more in-depth
communication about radon risks. Most State radon offices make presentations
to community groups upon request. For this Project, proactive efforts were made
to organize and schedule such presentations. To supplement the limited MDE
staff resources, the Project Team also sought to identify intermediaries-e.g., other
knowledgeable officials such as health officials~who could also communicate to
the public about radon risks.
Between January and March 1988, the MDE staff made nine presentations
to civic groups in the city of Frederick (see Appendix 10 for a list of the
community groups). A staff member from the Frederick County Health
Department made one presentation. Approximately 300 people attended the
nine meetings. A radon slide show with an accompanying 20-minute audio tape
was developed for use in presentations by State radon officials and
intermediaries (see Appendix 11 for a copy of the slide show script).
In addition, MDE staff participated in a panel discussion organized jointly
with the League of Women Voters. The two-hour panel discussion took place
on a Saturday morning in February and was attended by approximately fifty '
citizens. The panel members represented different perspectives on radon risks;
they were the Director of MDE's Center for Radiological Health, an EPA Region 3
radon representative, a Frederick pulmonary physician, and representatives of
the Maryland Association of Realtors and the Masonry Contractors Association.
. The meeting was publicized by the League of Women Voters through the
distribution of flyers and in the local newspaper. The Project Team also secured
the cooperation of the Frederick County school system, which distributed letters
from the MDE for the children to take home to their parents announcing the
event.
5. Community Presentations: How it Worked
Contacting organizations and arranging for MDE speakers to make
presentations was time-consuming and problematic. It was often difficult to
locate and contact the specific person responsible for scheduling speakers for an
organization. Also, organizations generally must be contacted months in
advance, because many of them fill their calendars as much as a year ahead of
time.
While the community groups showed a great deal of interest in the rado~ri
presentations, the process of scheduling these presentations was resource-
intensive and not necessarily a good use of staff time. Responding to requests for
-------
19
speakers, as State officials commonly do, requires a time commitment for the
travel and meeting, but does not involve so much preliminary work on the part
of the State staff.
Working with the League of Women Voters on the panel discussion, on
the other hand, required less staff time because the League did much of the
logistical work. Exposure generated as a result of the panel discussion was as
great if not greater than that achieved with individual civic group meetings.
However, adequate lead time is required to identify a group to organize this type
of event.
Identifying intermediaries who could and would make presentations was
problematic. Attempts to include local health officials in communicating about
radon risks, along the lines of a program initiated by New Jersey in 1987, were not
successful. The Frederick County Health Department officials contacted were not
interested in an active role. However, the MDE staff found the radon slide show
a useful presentation tool and found that it provided a consistent message that
other radon risk communicators can use. The MDE is therefore planning to use
the intermediary approach with the University of Maryland Cooperative
Extension Services. The University of Maryland Cooperative Extension Services
has duplicated the radon slide show developed for this Project and provided a set
to the extension services in each county in Maryland. For those county offices
lacking the audio-visual equipment necessary for the slide show, the Cooperative
Extension Services has agreed to provide such equipment on loan.
In addition to the slide show, the Cooperative Extension Services is
reproducing one of the four radon posters for display in each extension office in
Maryland. The radon leaflets also will be reproduced and distributed through the
extension offices.
Working with intermediaries requires coordination by State staff, but it
expands the number of people who can respond to requests for presentations.
Use of a tool such as the radon slide show also ensures that all parties are
providing the same message. The radon slide show, however, delivers a general
message about radon: what it is, how it enters the home, how to test, and what
can be done about the problem. It does not describe individual State programs.
State officials who are concerned that information about their individual State
programs are accurately conveyed must ensure that other communicators are
well informed about their radon programs.
The radon slide show produced for this Project is available for use by State
radon program officials or intermediaries in the State through the Office of
Radiation Programs or EPA Regional Offices. This slide show has also been
converted into a video tape by the EPA and is available in that form.
-------
20
6. Other Community Events: What Was Done
Two other community events were organized as part of the community
outreach to further personalize radon risks. The first was Radon Awareness
Week (January 17-23) designed to kick off the community awareness campaign in
Frederick. The Frederick News-Post printed a photograph of the Mayor signing a
proclamation of Radon Awareness Week, and covered an interview with the
director of the MDE Center for Radiological Health. Optimally, this week should
have consisted of a series of radon-awareness raising events. Due to time
constraints, the Project Team was not able to organize such events during the
week. Substantial lead time and considerable coordination are necessary to
ensure that a series of events take place in a given one-week period.
A second event that was intended to take place during Radon Awareness
Week but actually took place later, because of scheduling conflicts, was radon
testing by six Frederick officials. The Mayor and five Aldermen agreed to test
their homes as a means of encouraging other Frederick residents to do the same.
As part of this event, a newspaper reporter interviewed the Mayor about why he
was testing his home and took photographs of him placing a charcoal canister in
his basement.
7. Other Community Events: How it Worked
These events were easy to arrange. The Project Team contacted the
Mayor; he agreed to sign a proclamation for Radon Awareness Week. A call to
the Frederick News-Post resulted in news coverage. The mayor also enlisted the
support of the Aldermen for the radon testing. The Project Team arranged for
press coverage and provided the charcoal canisters. Efforts were made to
emphasize that free test kits are not provided by the State of Maryland or the
EPA, as citizens often believe that free test kits are distributed by the government.
Of the six radon screening tests by the local officials, two produced
readings that were under the EPA action guideline of 4 pCi/1, while four were
between 4 and 20 pCi/1. The local officials agreed to talk to a newspaper reporter
about the results and their next steps. A follow-up article therefore appeared and
described what the results meant and what would be done next. This provided a
unique opportunity to address the issue of what an individual should do after
obtaining radon screening test results. The fact that four of the six officials had
readings above the EPA action guideline helped reinforce the message that
elevated radon levels are found in Frederick and that residents should test their
homes.
-------
21
8. Community Outreach: General Assessment
Overall, the community outreach was resource-intensive. Many elements
of this outreach were time consuming and require sufficient staff. In offices
where staff are already over-extended, such outreach would be beyond the staff
resources available. For this project, a student intern and EPA staff member on
detail to the MDE took an active role in organizing many of the community
events since the MDE staff did not have the time to do so.
State radon offices with limited staff can seek to find additional staff
resources, such as a student intern, or work in collaboration with organizations
such as the American Lung Association or civic groups such as the League of
Women Voters or Rotary Club. The Project Team contacted the ALA and other
civic groups and found them to be very interested in working with the State to
communicate about radon risks. The American Lung Association and American
Medical Association have financial resources to help produce materials such as
posters, leaflets, or slide shows. Civic groups, on the other hand, have the
manpower resources to help organize and publicize events. The resources these
groups bring to an endeavor can greatly augment that directly available to a State
radon office. They also help personalize the message because people living in the
community see that other residents are concerned about radon.
-------
22
III. WJLA-TV Radon Awareness Campaign
While the EPA-MDE project was in progress during the 1987/88 heating
season, a Washington, D.C. television station, WJLA, conducted a month-long
campaign to encourage people in the area to test their homes for radon. WJLA
not only communicated to the public about radon risks in January-February 1988,
it also arranged for test kits to be available at a major supermarket chain for a
reduced price of $4.75.
While WJLA anticipated about 20,000 people in the area would test their
homes as a result of its efforts,6 some 100,000 radon test kits actually were
purchased. The WJLA campaign exhibited many elements of a good
communication effort. It also had a tremendous impact on the public's radon
knowledge and testing behavior, which was reflected in the EPA-MDE surveys.
A description of the WJLA efforts follows.
A. Main Components of WJLA Campaign
In 1986, Roberta Baskin, an investigative news reporter for WJLA,
publicized the risks of radon in the Washington, D.C. area after the station
randomly tested some 40 homes. Two years later, the station decided to embark
on a major effort to increase the number of homes tested, as a means of assessing
where local radon problems exist.
What was unique about this effort was its sheer scope. It was a total
station project involving close collaboration among the News, Programming,
Public Service, and Promotion Departments. Television, radio, newspapers, and
magazines were all used as media for communicating about the public awareness
campaign and the availability of radon test kits at Safeway Supermarkets.
The first radon news series was scheduled for the week of January 18,
1988. Three weeks earlier, the station started airing a series of Public Service
Announcements (PSAs) on radon. These PSAs ranged from scenes of a child in a
gas mask playing with her doll to a discussion of the dangers of radon by Senator
Warner of Virginia. Roberta Baskin also appeared in some of these and took on
the role of radon spokesperson for the station.
During the week of January 12th, the Promotion Department began
promoting the various news stories that would appear the following week. A
commercial publicizing the sale of radon test kits at Safeway also first aired
during this week. The campaign was called "Radon Watch."
6According to WJLA 20,000 was the largest number of test kits that had been previously
distributed as the result of any single television public awareness campaign. This campaign required the
viewer to send a $10 check to the station to receive the radon detector.
-------
23
Roberta Baskin kicked off the campaign with a three-part news series the
week of January 18th. Each segment was featured on the 5 p.m. and 11 p.m. news
broadcasts and was repeated on the 12 p.m. news the following day. The news
series was also promoted on radio from January 18th to 20th, and a full-page ad
appeared in the Washington Post TV Magazine January 18th, publicizing the
campaign and availability of the radon test kits. The first news broadcasts were
aimed at educating people about radon risks and informing them about how to
obtain the radon test kits through local Safeway stores.
During the next month, Roberta Baskin continued to talk about radon on
the local news, and brief promotional "Radon Watch" spots were featured
regularly. The public awareness campaign ended with another three-part series
focusing on the radon test results, hot spots, and mitigation. A full-page ad
appeared in the Washington Post on February 16 to publicize the final radon
news reports, and radio promotion also took place February 15-19.
In addition to these activities, WJLA worked closely with the American
Cancer Society and American Lung Association, both of which were listed on the
PSAs as sources of further information. These two organizations distributed
some 75,000 brochures to households in the D.C. metropolitan area as part of
their regular mailings (see Appendix 12). The February 1988 issue of a magazine
produced by the station, Showcase Magazine, also featured an article on the
radon campaign and how to get the test kits. Some 400,000 copies of the
magazine are mailed to households in the D.C. area.
Finally, WJLA also coordinated with EPA's Office of Radiation Programs
and with State radon program officials and featured several interviews with EPA
and State officials as a means of providing more credibility to the WJLA message
about radon. Toll-free hotline numbers for State radon programs in Virginia,
Maryland and Washington, D.C. were provided as part of the television news
series.
Almost a month after the public awareness campaign and sale of radon
test kits ended, WJLA aired on March 12 a half-hour special on radon in the
Washington, D.C. metropolitan area. Ratings for this program indicated that
over 76,000 households tuned in, a large number for this kind of program.
B. Sale of Radon Test Kits
In conjunction with the public awareness media campaign, WJLA
provided for the availability of radon test kits at a special low price. Where radon
test kits cost on average between $10 and $25, WJLA offered them for $4.75. The
price was reduced and the purchase location as convenient as possible~at local
Safeway Supermarkets.
-------
24
Initially, WJLA arranged with AirChek, a radon testing firm, for
distribution of 20,000 radon test kits through Safeway Supermarkets in the D.C.
Metropolitan area, with a contingency plan for up to 50,000 test kits.7 Within
two days of the first delivery of test kits to Safeway Stores-which coincided with
the first news series on January 18~the radon test kits were sold out.
Arrangements were then made for a total distribution of 75,000 test kits through
the Safeway Stores. Radon test kits were delivered to the stores each Saturday
morning, only to be sold out within hours. In the D.C. area many people lined
up outside the Safeway stores each Saturday morning waiting for delivery of the
kits. Even in those distribution areas outside the metropolitan area, such as
Frederick, test kits were sold out quickly.
By the end of the campaign in February, the 75,000 test kits had been sold
and demand remained high. WJLA then arranged to have more radon test kits
available for purchase at a price of $7.75 through a coupon in the Washington
Post, which appeared only once and was discussed on the air. It resulted in the
sale of another 25,000 test kits.
Of the 100,000 test kits purchased as part of the WJLA radon awareness
campaign, 70,000 had been returned for analysis by July 1988. AirChek estimates
that additional kits will continue to trickle in each month, with a possible
upsurge in the next heating season, though some portion of the remaining kits
are likely never to be sent in.
C Impact on the EPA-MDE Project
The WJLA campaign targeted the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area.
Given their proximity, Frederick residents are more likely than people in
Hagerstown or Randallstown to watch WJLA. Hagerstown residents with an
antenna can also pick up WJLA, but can choose between Washington, D.C.,
Baltimore and some Pennsylvania stations. Randallstown, a Baltimore suburb,
is outside the WJLA viewing area, but WJLA reception is good in Randallstown
although residents are more likely to watch ABC on Channel 13 which features
local Baltimore news, than on Channel 7 with Washington local news.
Randallstown residents with cable TV, however, do not pick up WJLA.
Radon test kits were available in some Safeway stores outside the D.C.
area. The two Safeway stores in and near Frederick sold approximately 6,000 test
kits. Since no Safeway store is located in Hagerstown, the nearest Safeway for its
residents interested in buying a Safeway test kit was in Frederick. No radon test
kits were distributed through Safeway stores in the Baltimore area.
'AirChek uses a charcoal bag and 7 day test for measuring radon levels. The $4.75 kit purchase
price included the analysis of the test results. AirChek's usual retail price is $11.95.
-------
25
Of the radon test kits analyzed by AirChek for this "Radon Watch"
campaign, 669 were from Frederick, 93 from Hagerstown, and 10 from
Randallstown.8 This indicates that Frederick residents were more aware of the
WJLA campaign and/or had better access to the Safeway test kits. To put these
numbers in perspective, the test kits analyzed for the cities of Frederick and
Hagerstown represented over half of all the AirChek test kits for Frederick and
Washington Counties during this period. Test kits from Randallstown,
however, represented less than 10 percent of all AirChek kits for Baltimore
County (excluding Baltimore City).
The EPA-MDE Project post-outreach survey provided a further indication
of the impact of the WJLA campaign in the three communities. This is discussed
in the next section.
8The AirChek data was actually for a 16-month period from January 1987 to April 1988. However,
the vast majority of their database resulted from the WJLA Radon Watch campaign and sale of test kits.
-------
26
IV. EVALUATION OF RADON RISK COMMUNICATION
METHODS & MATERIALS
This chapter presents an evaluation of the radon risk communication
methods and materials developed and tested during this Project. The chapter is
organized as follows:
- An explanation of the objective of the evaluation process.
- A description of the methodology of the surveys conducted
in Frederick, Hagerstown, and Randallstown.
- A summary of the major findings with respect to differences
among the communities; the use of mass media, unsolicited
mailings, and community outreach techniques; and the
effect of survey respondent characteristics.
- A detailed discussion of indicators of the effect of the EPA-
MDE outreach activities, including changes in people's
awareness, knowledge, and attitudes about radon; people's
sources of information on radon; and whether people tested
for radon and what reasons people gave for not testing.
A. Objectives of Evaluation
To assess the effectiveness of the EPA-MDE outreach methods, the Project
Team undertook two carefully designed surveys—one before and one after the
outreach activities were conducted. Analysis of calls to the MDE hotline
provided an additional means of assessing the effectiveness of the outreach
activities. The major objectives of the evaluation were:
- To determine where people obtained their radon information
and how this influenced their knowledge, attitudes and
testing behavior.
- To measure changes in radon awareness, knowledge,
attitudes and testing between the two surveys and how these
were influenced by project outreach activities.
To characterize the type of individual who is concerned about
radon and has tested, and the type of individual who has not
tested as a means of better communicating to different
audiences.
-------
data on:
27
To meet these evaluation goals, the survey was designed to produce
Perceptions of risks from radon—compared to other
environmental risks.
Sources of radon information.
Attitudes about radon.
General knowledge about radon.
Testing behavior.
Reasons for not testing.
Socio-economic characteristics of respondents.
B. Surveys
1. Where-When-How They Were Conducted
The population for the surveys was homeowners in Frederick,
Hagerstown, and Randallstown. People who did not own their residence were
excluded, since it is not necessarily a renter's responsibility to test, and since
renters, compared to owners, are less able to take remedial action if a radon
problem is found.
The pre-outreach (i.e., baseline) survey was conducted December 4-30,
1987, and the post-outreach (i.e., follow-up) survey was conducted April 4-25,
1988. Both were conducted by telephone rather than mail due to time constraints
and the need to screen for homeowners. Interviews lasted, on average, 15
minutes. The Research Triangle Institute (RTI) conducted the surveys.
2. Questionnaire
The questionnaire used for the surveys is in Appendix 2. The same
questions were asked in both the baseline and follow-up surveys, with the
exception of those about where respondents had seen or heard about radon. For
these questions, the follow-up survey included a number of open-ended
questions that were not on the baseline survey (see Q. 4 follow-up).
-------
28
3. Sample Selection and Survey Procedure
Two samples for each community were drawn independently for the
baseline and follow-up surveys. Thus, two different groups of respondents were
interviewed. This survey design, while only allowing for the identification of
overall changes between surveys, was chosen to eliminate the risk of
sensitization of respondents which might have occurred if the same respondents
were interviewed twice.9
A random digit dial technique was used to select the telephone numbers
to be called.10 Persons answering calls were screened to determine whether they
were homeowners. After determining that they had reached a homeowner (or
family or group of homeowners), interviewers used a randomized code to choose
a household decision-maker to interview (to avoid interviewing only people
who were most likely to answer phone calls). Only adults over 18 years of age
were considered eligible. At least three attempts to contact the chosen
interviewee were made before a telephone number was abandoned.
4. Response Rates
The survey design called for interviews of 500 homeowners in each
community in each survey. The actual numbers of respondents are shown
below:
Baseline Follow-Up
Number Percent * Number Percent*
Frederick 523 56.2 481 56.4
Hagerstown 530 63.8 534 67.4
Randallstown 495 47.9 513 55.0
* Percentage of eligible homeowners contacted who agreed to participate
in survey.
Communicating Radon Risk Effectively: Radon Testing in Maryland. Survey Plan. Research
Triangle Institute, November 1987, pp. 10-1 4 for more discussion on sample choice. As an auxiliary study
to this project, EPA's Office of Policy Analysis also interviewed the respondents from the baseline survey
for the follow-up, thus creating a dependent, or panel, sample. This panel sample allows for the
measurement of specific changes in the same sample between the baseline and follow-up surveys. For
more information on the analysis of the panel data see, Communicating Radon Risk Effectively: Radon
Testing in Maryland. Overview and Summary of Survey Results: Final Report. Research Triangle Institute
(RTI), October 1988 (hereinafter referred to as Overview and Summary of Survey Results).
is technique uses active hundred-blocks which represent potential working telephone
numbers. Most of the hundred blocks that were associated with governmental or commercial numbers were
screened out in advance, thus also excluding most of the non-working hundred blocks from the actual
survey calls.
-------
29
The low response rates for the surveys make it difficult to generalize
findings to the general populations in the three communities.11 However,
people's unwillingness to participate in the survey appeared to be a function of
their general unwillingness to answer any telephone inquiries, possibly as a
result of the increase in telemarketing and phone solicitations. Comparing the
demographic characteristics of the survey populations and census data would
indicate that the survey population was very similar to the general population in
the three communities (see Table 2). Thus, for the purposes of this study, it is
assumed that those who participated in the survey were not significantly
different from those who refused to participate.
5. Sample Description
Table 2 summarizes demographic data for the baseline and follow-up
samples. Noteworthy differences among the three communities included the
following:
- Mean educational level and income were highest in
Randallstown.
- On average, Hagerstown respondents were older and had
lived in their homes longer than those in the other
communities.
- One-third of the Randallstown respondents were non-
white, compared to only 5-7 percent in the other two
communities.
Overall, more women than men participated in the surveys, with
women comprising more than half the samples in all three communities.
Approximately 75% of the samples were non-smokers.
C. Principal Findings
Here is a quick summary of the Project Team's major findings regarding
the effectiveness of the EPA-MDE outreach activities and the impact of survey
respondents' characteristics on their awareness and knowledge of radon and
11A response rale of 70% or more is generally considered a good response rate. The lower
response rate may have been due to several factors. The baseline survey took place around Christmas-a
time when many people may be unwilling to take the time to respond to questions. There may also be an
urban/rural aspect to the response rates. Hagerstown, which is more rural than the other two communities,
had higher response rates in both surveys. Urban dwellers may be less willing to answer telephone
inquiries. Finally, in an effort to avoid bias, interviewers did not indicate that the survey was about radon
but were more vague, thereby possibly contributing to the lower response rate.
-------
TABLE 2
Age
Baseline
Follow-up
Education
Baseline
Follow-up
Income*
Baseline
Follow-up
Years Lived at Address"
Baseline
Follow-up
Value of Home*
Baseline
Follow-up
Sex (%male)
Baseline
Follow-up
Race* (%white)
Baseline
Follow-up
Frederick
Mean Census
45.87 43.16
45.29
13.89 12.4
13.68
$36,400 $35,400
$36,500
11.84 13.88
1 1 .44
$106,000 $74,000
$111,000
41 45
36
95 94
92
Hagerstown
Mean Census
49.72 46.04
50.1
12.86 12.1
12.54
$30,600 $27,400
$29,600
15.71 18.12
16.21
$77,000 $48,000
$80,000
38 46
36
97 97
97
Randallstown
Mean
44.49
45.11
14.42
14.44
$42,200
$43,000
12.98
12.63
$96,000
$100,000
41
45
67
66
Census
42.81
12.9
$46,800
11 .48
$86,000
48
86
Census Information:
Age - Weighted mean for persons 18 years of age or older.
Education - Median years of school completed for persons 25 years of age and older.
Income - From 1980 Census Data Tape adjusted for increase in income through 1985.
Value of Home - From 1980 Census Data Tape adjusted for increase in value through second quarter of 1986.
*Census data restricted to homeowners.
CO
o
-------
31
their testing behavior. These findings are elaborated and supported in Section D,
with a more detailed summary of the major findings in Section F.
1. Differences Between Test Communities
Frederick-where people were exposed to news media including the
WJLA campaign and access to low-cost radon kits in local supermarkets,
unsolicited mailing, and community outreach activities-showed the greatest
changes between the baseline and follow-up surveys with respect to awareness,
knowledge, attitudes, and testing behavior. Changes in Hagerstown-where news
media and unsolicited mailings were used-and in Randallstown-the
comparison community—were substantially smaller.
2. Effects of News Media
People's exposure to news media presentations about radon accounted for
most of the radon awareness measured in the surveys. WJLA's campaign was
particularly effective in increasing knowledge, awareness, and testing.
Newspapers also were found to be a widely used source of radon information,
but radio was found to be used far less frequently.
3. Unsolicited Mailings
Unsolicited mailings—at least in the form of utility bill inserts—will not
produce the widespread exposure to radon information that news media will.
Nevertheless, the mailing seemed to reinforce other communications and
successfully motivated some people who had read it to seek additional
information.
4. Community Outreach
No individual element of the community outreach had an identifiable
major impact, but the combination of several community outreach activities in
Frederick, which may have led to increased informal communication about
radon, appeared to have an effect on knowledge, awareness, and testing.
5. Impact of Respondent Characteristics
In this study, as in other evaluations of risk communication efforts, the
characteristics of people being addressed were found to have an influence on
their response to the message being presented.
-------
32
- Survey respondents who had talked to other people about radon
tended to be more knowledgeable about it and more likely to
have tested than those who had not talked to anyone else. This
was true in the baseline survey but was even more apparent in
the follow-up.
- Respondents who had called the State's hotline were more
knowledgeable about radon than those who had not, and a larger
percentage of testers than non-testers had called the hotline.
- Awareness, knowledge, and testing increased with increases in
respondents' educational levels and income.
- Respondents' race and sex were somewhat important. Whites
showed more awareness and knowledge about radon and were
more likely to have tested their home. Males showed slightly
more awareness and knowledge than females, but females were
more likely to say that testing is important.
The next section presents the Project Team's analysis of the data collected
for this Project insofar as it is relevant to radon risk communication.
D. Indicators of Outreach Effect
Two major goals of this project were to develop cost-effective and
innovative risk communication materials and to evaluate their relative
effectiveness. The main measures used to assess the effectiveness of the radon
outreach approaches were respondent awareness, knowledge, attitudes and
testing behavior.
Changes in these measures between the baseline and follow-up surveys
provide a tool for determining the effectiveness of the different outreach
approaches. Frederick consistently showed greater changes than Hagerstown and
Randallstown did. Also, while Randallstown respondents in general were not as
aware or knowledgeable about radon as Hagerstown respondents, the actual
changes between baseline and follow-up are very close for these two
communities.
The changes, in and of themselves, are not sufficient to indicate the full
extent of the EPA-MDE Project's impact. Due to the Project's short time frame,
the survey probably underestimates the impact of the communication activities,
since changes will occur gradually over time as other communications reinforce
those of the project. The WJLA campaign also coincided with the EPA-MDE
-------
33
outreach activities.12 Where the EPA-MDE outreach was low resource and
modest in nature, the WJLA campaign was multi-media, high resource, and high
profile. As the baseline survey data indicate, the three communities were also at
different stages of awareness, knowledge, attitudes, and testing at the outset. This
may have had an impact on the changes observed.
This section describes the changes that occurred between the pre- and
post-outreach surveys, and attempts to assess the causes of those changes.
1. Awareness
An important goal of any risk communication program is to increase
awareness of the risk. Without awareness, it is impossible to achieve any of the
desired changes-e.g., learning or behavior modification-in the target group. For
this Project, awareness was defined as whether an individual had seen or heard
anything about radon in the three months preceding the survey.
Figure 3 shows that Frederick had the highest level of awareness in the
follow-up survey; 9 out of 10 people interviewed had heard about radon in the
few months preceding the survey (i.e., during the outreach period). In
Hagerstown, almost 8 out of 10 people interviewed had heard about radon
during this period. In the comparison community, Randallstown, 7 out of 10
people had heard about radon.
Figure 3 also shows that there were substantial changes in awareness
between surveys.13 In Frederick, awareness increased by 18 percent-from about
72 percent in the baseline survey to 90 percent in the follow-up. The increases in
Hagerstown and Randallstown were similar-about 13 percent and 12.5 percent,
respectively. As shown in Table 3, all of these changes are statistically significant
at the standard 0.5 levels of significance. While the increase in awareness in
Frederick and Hagerstown follows the pattern that might be expected in
communities where outreach is effective, that in Randallstown is greater than
expected.
12Attempts were made to model the potential confounding influence of the WJLA campaign as part
of the data analysis. For a discussion of those findings, see Overview and Summary of Survey Results.
RTI.
13 The greater increase in awareness in Frederick is not easily attributable to a single factor, but
could be related to several factors including the WJLA campaign and the EPA-MDE outreach efforts.
-------
34
Figure 3
Percent of Respondents Who Had Seen or
Heard About Radon in the Past Few Months
100 n
80 -
60 -
40 -
20 -
90
72
baseline
follow-up
Frederick Hagerstown Randallstown
TABLE 3
CHANGES IN AWARENESS : STATISTICAL TEST
Changes in Awareness Proportions by Community
Have you seen or heard anything about radon in the past few months?
(Yes/Total - "Don't Know")
Baseline
proportions Ratio
Follow-Up
388/522
350/526
291/493
74.3
66.5
59.0
433/480
481/531
357/509
90.2
90.5
70.1
-5.29*
-3.64*
-3.11*
Frederick
Hagerstown
Randallstown
Note: This is not an exact Z Statistic as non-response was high. It can be
considered an exact test if it is assumed that respondents were no different,
demographically, than the non-respondents.
The sample proportions were tested at the 95% confidence level (Z Statistic of
-1.96 < z < 1.96 if null hypothesis is true).
*Z Statistics for sample proportions that are statistically different.
There appeared to be a relationship between certain respondent
characteristics-education, income, race, and sex-and awareness of radon As
educational levels increased, respondents were more likely to have seen or heard
-------
35
something about radon (see Figure 4). Awareness was also greater at the higher
income levels than at lower income levels (see Figure 5).
Figure 4
Percent of Respondents, by Educational Level, Who
Had Seen or Heard About Radon in Past Few Months
84
baseline
follow-up
<12 Years 12-15 Years 16+ Years
Figure 5
Percent of Respondents, by Income, Aware of Radon
100
80-
60-
40-
20 -
baseline
follow-up
<$25,000 $25,001-$50,000 $50,000 +
White respondents were more likely to be aware of radon than non-white
respondents (see Figure 6) and men more likely to be aware than women (see
Figure 7).
-------
36
Figure 6
Percent of Respondents, by Race, Who Had Seen
Or Heard About Radon in Past Few Months
100
80 -
60 -
baseline
follow-up
40 -
20-
White
Non-White
Figure 7
Percent of Respondents, by Sex, Who Had Seen
Or Heard About Radon in Past Few Months
100
baseline
follow-up
Male
Female
Calls to the State of Maryland hotline during the project outreach period
were high. In January, there were 932 calls during the last 10 days of the month
alone, 1,697 calls in February, and 2,730 calls in March compared to the usual
hotline average of 1,200 a month. The large increase in hotline calls during the
EPA-MDE outreach period suggests that this was a period of particularly high
radon awareness and concern.
-------
37
2. Sources of Information
In addition to measuring whether respondents were aware of radon, the
Project also looked at where people obtained their information about radon.
Hotline callers and survey respondents all were asked about this. Hotline callers,
having obtained a phone number to make their call, would be expected to
remember where they had heard about radon, particularly if they obtained the
hotline number as a result. Survey respondents were asked where (in general)
radon information had been obtained. Less accurate recall is expected for general
information than when a specific item was obtained (i.e., a phone number).
Media
Among respondents in the pre-outreach survey, newspapers were
identified as the main source of information. Television, radio, and magazines
were less important sources (see Figure 8).14
Figure 8
Of Respondents Who Had Seen or Heard About Radon,
% Who Had Seen or Heard About it in the Ways Below
100
baseline
Frederick
Hagerstown
Randallstown
newspaper
radio
magazine
In the follow-up survey, television was identified as important a source of
radon information as newspapers (see Figure 9) in all three communities.
Exposure to television increased substantially between the baseline and follow-
up surveys with increases of 24 percent in Frederick, 19 percent in Hagerstown,
and 15 percent in Randallstown. In Frederick, newspapers were cited as a source
14This is consistent with the findings of a New Jersey study in 1986, Public Response to the Risk
from Radon. Report to the Division of Environmental Quality, New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection, Sandman, P.M., Klotz, M.L., & Weinstein, N.D. (1987), Table 5, p. 20. This report is also the
principal work describing differences between those who test and those who do not, and as such provides
many interesting insights about the public's perception of radon.
-------
38
of information by a larger percent of respondents than television, as compared to
Hagerstown and RandaUstown where a slightly higher percentage of respondents
cited television.
Figure 9
Of Respondents Who Had Seen or Heard About Radon,
% Who Had Seen or Heard About it in the Ways Below
100
80 -
follow-up
Frederick
Hagerstown
RandaUstown
newspaper
radio magazine
Much of the increase in TV can be attributed to the WJLA public
awareness campaign. A number of newsworthy events during this period led to
increased TV visibility for radon; however, information about these events
appeared mainly in short spots on the news.15
As seen in Table 4, television was the main impetus for calls from
Frederick and Hagerstown to the radon hotline. With the exception of
Hagerstown in February, where 29 percent of callers cited newspaper and 25
percent cited television as a source of information on the hotline, TV resulted ir
almost half of all calls to the hotline from Frederick and Hagerstown.
Newspapers were also an important source of calls.
Comparison of the baseline and follow-up survey results indicated there
was a slight increase in the percentage of respondents in Frederick and
Hagerstown who cited radio as a source of radon information, but this was too
small to indicate that the Project's radio PSAs had any impact (see Figures 8 and
9). Radio accounted for a very small percentage of calls to the Maryland hotline
in both Frederick and Hagerstown (Table 4).
15A number of news stories resulted from the release of the National Academy of Sciences report
in early January 1988. Increased testing of schools for radon also led to greater visibility of radon durinq the
heating season.
-------
TABLE 4
WHERE HOTLINE CALLERS HEARD ABOUT RADON
Sources of JANUARY*
Information Frederick
FEBRUARY
MARCH
Hagerstown Frederick Hagerstown Frederick Hagerstown
T.V. 1 3
Newspaper 1 1
Radio 1
Utility inserts 0
Flyers 0
Posters 0
Other** 2
Total (all calls) 27
34
24
2
0
0
0
20
80
26
8
8
1 3
6
6
2
69
1 7
20
6
1 3
1
0
12
69
51
1 6
1
1 0
4
4
1 0
96
47
32
4
15
2
3
1 0
113
*JANUARY calls only reflect calls during the last 10 days of the month (records were not kept prior to that).
"OTHER includes: public meeting, phone book, health department, EPA, Safeway.
NOTE: A total of 8 calls were recorded from Randallstown during these three months.
These were attributed to T.V., newspaper, and other.
CO
(£>
-------
40
ytility Bill Inserts
Respondents were asked in the baseline and follow-up surveys whether
they had seen anything about radon in a utility bill. The mailing of utility bill
inserts about radon was only carried out by one utility company as part of the
EPA-MDE outreach. Since this mailing began in February 1988, no positive
responses were expected in the baseline survey which took place in December
1987. However, a small percentage of baseline respondents incorrectly reported
seeing such inserts (see Figure 10).
Figure 10
Of Those Respondents Who Had Seen or Heard
About Radon, Percent Who Saw Utility Inserts
baseline
follow-up
Frederick Hagerstown Randallstown
Residents of Frederick and Hagerstown received radon utility inserts,
while those in Randallstown did not. Therefore, respondents in the two test
communities were expected to recall this source. An increase in the numbers of
respondents citing utility bills did occur in Frederick and Hagerstown.
Randallstown still had a percentage of respondents citing utility bills, though this
percentage was very close to that in the baseline survey. If the same percentage of
respondents in the three communities can be assumed to erroneously cite utility
bills as a source of information in both the baseline and follow-up surveys, this
would mean that in actuality 12.8 percent (18.5 - 5.7) of the respondents in
Frederick saw the utility inserts, 4.2 percent (13.6-9.4) in Hagerstown and 0.4
percent (10.7- 10.3) in Randallstown."
16These figures may understate the impact of the utility inserts since the panel data showed higher
levels of recall for utility inserts.
-------
41
Another measure of the relative impact of the utility bills was obtained
from the radon-related phone calls received by the MDE (see Table 4). Of those
Frederick residents who called the State, 13 (18.8 percent) of the callers in
February and 10 (10.4 percent) of callers in March had obtained the number from
the utility insert.17 In Hagerstown, 13 (18.8 percent) of callers in February and 15
(13.2 percent) of callers in March had obtained the phone number from the
inserts. No callers from Randallstown cited utility inserts.
Community Outreach
Measuring the impact of the community outreach was difficult. This
outreach component consisted of the distribution of posters and leaflets, radon
presentations, as well as some community events. The survey sought to identify
the impact of the community outreach by asking if respondents recalled a radon
poster or had attended a presentation. Posters were displayed only in Frederick.
Also, while it is possible that a respondent in any of the three communities could
have attended a radon presentation, special efforts were made to conduct such
presentations in Frederick. In addition to direct questions on these outreach
components, some open-ended questions were included on the follow-up to help
identify any other community activities that had served as sources of
information about radon.
Only a small percentage of the respondents cited radon posters or
presentations as a source of information (see Figure II).18 While these figures
are too low to be conclusive, Frederick respondents were marginally more likely
to have seen a poster or to have attended a presentation. The Project Team did
not expect these percentages to be large, given the modest scope of the
community outreach, and the survey data do not allow any definitive
conclusions to be drawn about the effects of the community outreach. However,
some of the open-ended questions did result in an occasional respondent in
Frederick saying that he or she had seen a poster on display, or had picked up a
radon leaflet at one of the locations listed in Appendix 9. A number of Frederick
respondents also recalled reading or hearing about local officials testing for
radon.
17Utility radon inserts were included in the February/March mailings by Potomac Edison.
18The data obtained on this information source is likely to be on the conservative side since the
survey attempted not to prompt people in their responses by asking open-ended rather than more targeted
questions. The results of regression analysis of the data, especially for the panel data, indicate that the
community outreach played a role in explaining the observed changes between surveys. See Overview and
Summary of Survey Results. RTI.
-------
42
Figure 11
Of Those Respondents Who Had Seen or Heard About
Radon, % Who Saw Poster or Attended Presentation
20
15 -
10 -
5 -1
c\i
r--
co
oo
c\i
follOW-UD
Poster
Presentation
Frederick Hagerstown Randallstown
The hotline data provide some additional information on the
community outreach activities. As shown by this data, Frederick callers were
more likely to cite posters or leaflets than Hagerstown callers (see Table 4).
Hagerstown callers would not have been expected to see either leaflets or posters
unless they were in Frederick, as this component of the outreach took place only
in Frederick.
Some of the newspaper effects already described for Frederick (based on
the survey data and hotline records) may also potentially be attributed to the
community outreach component of the project since a number of newspaper
articles were a direct result of community events organized for the project. It is
not possible to separate out the different newspaper sources of information,
except to note that testing by local officials was cited by a number of Frederick
respondents when describing what they recalled seeing in the newspaper.
3. Knowledge
Changes in knowledge of radon are another means of assessing the
impact of the Project's risk communication program. The survey included seven
questions measuring respondents' knowledge of radon. These included
questions on what radon is, how to measure it, associated health effects and
testing and mitigation. Each respondent was asked to pick the best of three
choices or "don't know," if that was his or her best answer.
Table 5 summarizes respondent performance on each of the knowledge
questions in the baseline and follow-up surveys. Several interesting patterns
-------
TABLE 5
KNOWLEDGE ABOUT RADON BY COMMUNITY (PERCENTAGE CORRECT)
Frederick
Hagerstown
Randallstown
Questions
Where does radon in
homes come from?
What kind of odor
does radon have?
What affects level of
radon measured?
How can one test for
radon?
When do health problems
from radon occur?
Baseline
Survey
61
73
25
28
33
Follow-Up
Survey
71
84
40
65
42
Baseline
Survey
49
66
1 9
22
31
Follow-Up
Survey
57
71
24
44
31
Baseline
Survey
42
63
1 6
24
32
Follow-Up
Survey
49
67
21
46
31
What kinds of health
problems does radon
cause?
What can one do to
reduce radon levels
in the home?
54
56
70
70
48
43
59
53
41
41
48
50
CO
-------
44
emerge. First, Frederick, which received both the media and community
outreach, had much higher levels of knowledge in the follow-up than the
comparison community, Randallstown. Knowledge about radon was generally
higher in Hagerstown than in the comparison community, but the differences
between surveys were much smaller than those in Frederick.
Second, the largest difference between surveys occurred for Question 15,
"How can one test for radon?" This was one of the main messages of the EPA
communication program (and of the WJLA campaign). In Frederick, 37 percent
more people answered this question correctly in the follow-up. Both Hagerstown
and Randallstown showed improvements in the range of 20 percent.
Third, people showed more knowledge of general characteristics-it occurs
naturally and has no odor-than more technical issues-what affects the level
measured and when do health problems usually occur. Performance on the
knowledge questions was at least in the 70 to 80 percent range for the general
questions, but declined to the 40 to 45 percent range for the more technical ones.
This suggests that there is still more to be done in communicating information
about measurement factors and the timing of health, problems.
Fourth, Frederick and Hagerstown homeowners also improved
significantly on being able to identify the health problems caused by radon (Q. 17),
and knowing what can be done to reduce radon levels (Q. 18). Frederick
respondents showed the greatest improvement at 16 and 14 percent, respectively.
The improvement in Hagerstown was 11 and 10 percent, respectively.
Randallstown improved slightly less at 7 and 9 percent, respectively.
Figures 12-14 indicate the percentage of respondents in each community
who answered the indicated number of questions correctly in the baseline and
follow-up surveys. Overall, the percentage of respondents answering five or
more questions correctly increased in all three communities between the two
surveys.
In the baseline survey, Frederick respondents were generally more
knowledgeable about radon than Hagerstown and Randallstown respondents; in
the follow-up, however, Frederick respondents' general level of knowledge had
also increased more than that of Hagerstown and Randallstown respondents.
Thus, a larger percentage of respondents in Frederick answered five or more
questions correctly (57 percent) as compared to Hagerstown (35 percent), and
Randallstown (30 percent). Changes between the baseline and follow-up surveys
were very similar for Randallstown and Hagerstown.
-------
45
Figure 12
Percent of Frederick Respondents Who Answered
the Indicated Number of Questions Correctly
01234567
baseline
follow-up
Figure 13
Percent of Hagerstown Respondents Who Answered
the Indicated Number of Questions Correctly
01234567
baseline
follow-up
-------
46
Figure 14
Percent of Randallstown Respondents Who Answered
the Indicated Number of Questions Correctly
H baseline
0 follow-up
Performance on the knowledge questions also appeared to bear a
relationship to whether a respondent had spoken to someone about radon or
called the toll-free number. Figure 15 shows that for all respondents in the
follow-up survey, over three-fourths of those who talked to someone about
radon answered 5 or more questions correctly, compared to about one-third of
those who had not. Testers in Frederick performed better than those in
Hagerstown
Figure 15
Number of Knowledge Questions Answered Correctly
by People Who Had Talked to Someone About Radon
2.90%
14.50%
43.10%
Number of
questions correct
-------
47
and Randallstown. Testers in Randallstown performed as well as those in
Hagerstown.
Respondents who had called the toll-free radon hotline also answered
more questions correctly than those who had not. It should be noted that this
group was very small relative to the sample as a whole. However, the personal
contact involved in speaking to someone~a friend, relative, or co-worker~about
radon or to a government official through the radon hotline, appears to play an
important role in promoting knowledge or learning about radon.
Respondents who had tested their home answered more knowledge
questions correctly than non-testers. Testers in Frederick performed best, with
almost three-fourths answering 6 or 7 questions correctly, compared to less than
one-third of the non-testers (see Figure 16). In Hagerstown and Randallstown,
almost one-half of the testers answered 6-7 questions correctly, as compared to
under 20 percent of the non-testers.19
Use of cross-tabulations20 supplemented by statistical analyses21 of the
performance on the knowledge questions yielded some additional insights about
performance on the knowledge questions as a function of the EPA outreach
program, various socio-economic factors, and potential confounding factors such
as television and the WJLA-TV campaign. Additional implications of the
analyses were:
- Homeowners in Frederick and Hagerstown had higher levels of
radon knowledge than those in Randallstown, even after taking
into account exposure to the WJLA-TV campaign and various
socio-economic factors.
- People who recalled seeing radon programs on television had
greater knowledge than those who did not recall seeing such
programs.
- White respondents and male respondents had higher
knowledge than non-whites and females.
- Respondents with higher education and higher income levels
performed better than those with lower levels.
19See Appendix 13 for graphs on Hagerstown and Randallstown follow-up survey tester/non-tester
performance on knowledge questions.
20Cross-tabulations allow for comparisons of two different sets of data, e.g., comparing
educational levels and testing behavior, or age and performance on knowledge questions.
21 See Appendix 14 for a table of the regression results. More details can be found in Overview and
Supriman/ of Survey Results. RTI.
-------
48
Figure 16
Among Respondents in Frederick Who Had Tested,
How Many Knowledge Questions Did They Answer Correctly?
Follow-Up Survey
3.8%
2.6%
Number of
Knowledge Questions
Among Respondents in Frederick Who Hadn't Tested,
How Many Knowledge Questions Did They Answer Correctly?
Follow-Up Survey
Number of
Knowledge Questions
-------
49
4. Attitudes
Whether people's attitudes about radon change as they become more
aware of, and knowledgeable about the problem, was one of the questions
explored in the Project. For this purpose, "attitudes toward radon" were defined
as respondents' perceptions about testing and mitigation.
To determine respondents' attitudes about radon testing and mitigation
they were asked to rate on a 4-point scale (strongly agree, agree, disagree, strongly
disagree) their position on three statements. A fifth response choice was "don't
know." These statements were:
- "It is important to test my home to find out if I have a radon
problem."
- "If I had a radon problem, it would be costly to fix."
- "Even if a radon problem was fixed my home would still be
worth a lot less."
These three statements correspond closely to the risk communication
messages, which emphasized the importance of testing, that remediation need
not be expensive, and that remediation can be effective. If the messages were
accepted, the proportion agreeing to the first statement would increase, and the
proportions disagreeing to the second and third would increase.
Table 6 provides information on the percentage of respondents in each of
the three communities who agreed or disagreed with each statement in the
baseline and follow-up surveys. In all three communities, a higher percent of
respondents in the follow-up survey said it was important to test their home for
radon. Frederick respondents, however, were more likely to say it is important
to test for radon (76 percent) relative to Hagerstown (66 percent) and
Randallstown (67 percent). Frederick also showed the greatest increase in this
attitude between surveys.
A change in attitude about the cost of fixing a radon problem also
occurred between the baseline and follow-up surveys. Overall, the percentage of
respondents disagreeing that it would be costly to mitigate for radon increased, a
trend consistent with the radon outreach communications. The follow-up
showed that respondents in Frederick were more likely to disagree with this
statement than those in the other two communities and less likely to give "don't
know" as a response.
-------
TABLE 6
Frederick
Basellne(%)
"Important to Test"
- agree"
- disagree"
- don't know
"Costly to Fix"
- agree*
- disagree"
- don't know
"House Worth Less"
- agree"
- disagree**
- don't know
65
25
1 0
53
22
25
44
41
1 5
Follow-Up(%)
76
1 7
7
38
37
25
28
61
1 1
ATTITUDES ABOUT RADON
Haqerstown
Randallstown
Baseline(%)
63
23
1 4
51
1 8
31
42
40
1 8
Follow-Up(%)
66
20
14
39
27
34
32
47
21
Basellne(%)
66
21
1 3
43
20
37
33
47
20
Follow-Up(%)
67
21
12
39
24
37
32
46
22
Ul
o
'Includes response categories "strongly agree" and "agree"
"Includes response categories "disagree" and "strongly disagree"
-------
51
The project stressed that mitigation costs are affordable and in line with
other home-related expenses. Frederick respondents, in the follow-up survey,
were more likely to demonstrate this attitude than Hagerstown and
Randalls town respondents.
The final attitude statement deals with people's perceptions of the value
of a home mitigated for radon. Overall, the percentage of respondents who
disagreed with this statement increased between the baseline and follow-up
surveys.
In the baseline survey, the larger percentage of respondents in
Randallstown (47 percent) who disagreed with the statement was larger than that
in Hagerstown (40 percent) and Frederick (41 percent). By the follow-up,
however, a larger percentage of Frederick respondents disagreed with the
statement (61 percent), compared to Hagerstown (47 percent) and Randallstown
(46 percent). While the "don't know" responses increased slightly in Hagerstown
and Randallstown between surveys, they decreased in Frederick.
Overall, Frederick respondents exhibited the more informed attitudes
about radon testing and mitigation than did Hagerstown and Randallstown
respondents. Frederick respondents also demonstrated the greatest overall
changes in attitudes in the desired direction between the baseline and follow-up
surveys.
Table 7 summarizes the results from statistical tests to determine whether
the proportions of people having these three attitudes changed between the
baseline and follow-up surveys. The results indicate that the risk communication
messages were received and accepted by a significantly higher proportion of
respondents in the EPA-MDE outreach communities. In Frederick, the
proportions increased in the desired direction for all three questions, while in
Hagerstown significant changes were measured in the second and third case.
There were no significant differences in the comparison community.
Cross-tabulations of the socio-economic characteristics of respondents and
their attitude about the importance of radon testing indicated that a relationship
existed between attitude and education and sex of respondents. Figure 17 shows
that as educational level increased, respondents were more likely to say that it is
important to test their home for radon. The percentage of respondents in each
educational category who said it was important to test also increased between the
baseline and follow-up surveys.
-------
52
Table 7: Changes in Attitudes About Radon: Statistical Test Results
Frederick
Hagerstown
Randallstown
"It is important to test my home to find out if I have a radon problem."
(Strongly Agree or Agree/Total "Don't Know")
Baseline
Proportions Ratio
342/467 73.2
333/452 73.7
326/428 76.2
Follow-up
Proportions
366/445
351/460
346/456
Ratio
82.2
76.3
75.9
Z Statistic
-2.67*
-0.78*
0.13
Frederick
Hagerstown
Randallstown
"If I had a radon problem, it would be costly to fix."
(Disagree or Strongly Disagree/Total "Don't Know")
Baseline
Proportions Ratio
115/392 29.3
92/363 25.3
99/311 31.8
Follow-up
Proportions
177/358
144/353
123/325
Ratio
32.7
40.8
37.8
Z Statistic
-5.44*
-4.33*
-1 .44
"Even if a radon problem were fixed, my home would still be worth a lot less."
(Disagree or Strongly Disagree/Total "Don't Know")
Frederick
Hagerstown
Randallstown
Baseline
Proportions
212/442
21 1/433
233/394
Ratio
47.9
48.7
59.1
Follow-up
Proportions
291/427
250/419
238/400
Ratio
68.1
59.7
59.5
Z Statistic
-5.43*
-2.92*
-0.04
Note: This is not an exact Z Statistic as non-response was high. It can be considered an exact test if it is
assumed that respondents were no different, demographically, than the non-respondents.
The sample proportions were tested at the 95% confidence level (Z Statistic of -1.96 < z < 1.96 if
the null hypothesis is true).
*Z Statistics for sample proportions that are statistically different.
-------
53
Figure 17
Percent of Respondents in Each Education Level Who
Felt It Is Important To Test Home for Radon
100
• baseline
ED follow-up
<12 years 12-15 years 16+ years
Female respondents were also more likely to agree that it is important to
test for radon than male respondents. As shown in Figure 18, 73 percent of the
women and 66 percent of the men in the follow-up said it is important to test.
This percentage showed an increase over the baseline levels, though the increase
was larger for women than for men.
Figure 18
Percent of Respondents, by Sex, Who Agreed
It Is Important to Test Home for Radon
100
H baseline
0 follow-up
male
female
-------
54
5. Testing
The most important indicator of risk communication effectiveness is the
extent of change in the desired behavior-in this case, homeowners testing their
homes for radon as a result of the EPA-MDE outreach activities.
In the baseline survey, levels of testing in the three communities were
very similar, with a slightly higher level in Frederick, where 6.9 percent of the
respondents had tested for radon as compared to Hagerstown's 5.3 percent and
Randallstown's 4.5 percent. Overall levels of testing increased between the
baseline and follow-up surveys, with the most substantial changes occurring in
Frederick (see Figure 19). Hagerstown and Randallstown showed only slight
increases over baseline testing levels.
Figure 19
Percent of People in Baseline and Follow-Up
Who Had Tested for Radon
baseline
follow-up
Frederick Hagerstown Randallstown
As the data shows, testing levels improved over the Project's four-month
period. The more dramatic increase in Frederick—of 9.4 percent—indicates that
some event(s) led to increased concern about radon and willingness to test. It is
likely that the WJLA campaign played a major role in the increased testing.
However, the data on sources of awareness indicate that a number of EPA-MDE
outreach activities, such as newspaper coverage of community events, utility bill
inserts, and posters did have an impact. The Project's cumulative effect appears
to help explain some of the increased testing observed.22
One factor that differentiates between testers and non-testers is whether
they had talked with a friend, neighbor, or co-worker about radon. Figure 20
22For more detailed information on statistical modeling used to determine the effects of the EPA-
MDE outreach on testing, see Overview and Summary or Survey Results. RTI.
-------
55
shows that 80 percent of testers in Frederick and 71 percent of testers in
Hagerstown had talked with someone about radon while only 45 percent and 33
percent of non-testers had discussed radon. In Randallstown, the percentage
difference between testers and non-testers is 34 percent but levels are 20 percent
lower.
Figure 20
Percent of Testers and Non-Testers in the
Follow-Up Survey Who Had Talked to Someone
About Radon
100
testers
non-testers
Frederick Hagerstown Randallstown
The EPA-MDE risk communication program stressed that people should
call the Maryland toll-free number for further information on radon. While
only 3 percent of the total sample had called this number, 14 percent of the testers
had done so compared to only 1.7 percent of the non-testers. It is not possible to
demonstrate a direct relationship between calls and testing behavior, since some
testers may have called the number after obtaining their test results; however, it
appears that the message directing individuals to a knowledgeable information
source (i.e., the Maryland Department of the Environment) was received, and
this may have facilitated the decision of some people to test for radon.
A number of other characteristics appeared to distinguish testers from
non-testers. These are described for the aggregated sample rather than for each
community, since this allowed for a larger pool of testers.
In the follow-up survey, respondents who used their basement as a living
area were more likely to test than those who did not (see Figure 21). This
distinction was not apparent in the baseline, which may indicate that those who
use their basements became more motivated to test as a result of
communications during the Project. While people who don't use their
-------
56
basements also should test their homes, radon levels tend to be highest in the
basement (or lowest level of the house). Therefore, those who use their
basements should be more concerned than those who do not, and this shift from
baseline to follow-up is consistent with the radon risk communication messages.
Figure 21
Percent of Testers/Non-Testers Who Use Their
Basement As a Living Area*
follow-up
100
80 -
60 -
40 -
20 -
yes no Use Basement
'Categories do not equal 100% due to no response/bad data
• testers
D non-testers
Income and education also appeared to bear some relationship to testing
behavior (see Figures 22-23). Testers were more likely to have 16+ years of
education than non-testers, and to have incomes over $25,000.23
23This was true in the follow-up survey. In the baseline survey, testers were more likely to have
incomes greater than $50,000 compared to non-testers. Differences were not apparent at other income
levels. It should also be noted that statistical modeling indicated that testing was influenced more by talking
about radon with someone and personalizing the risk than by income or education. See Overview and
Summary of Survey Results. RTI.
-------
57
Figure 22
Years of Education for Testers and Non-Testers
100
• testers
D non-testers
< 12 years 12-15 years 16+ years
Figure 23
Annual Income for Testers and Non-Testers
100
testers
non-testers
< $25,000 $25-50,000 $50,000 +
Testers were likely to be younger than non-testers (see Figure 24). In the
baseline, testers were more likely to be less than 35 years of age than non-testers,
though by the follow-up, those in the 35-39 year age group were also more likely
to be testers. White respondents were also more likely to test than non-white
respondents. No strong relationship was observed between smoking habits and
testing behavior, as respondents who were non-smokers were only marginally
more likely to test than smokers.
-------
58
Figure 24
Age of Testers and Non-Testers
100
• testers
D non-testers
< 35 years 35-49 years 50+ years
The changes in reasons homeowners gave for not testing for radon also
provide some insights on the effectiveness of the risk communication program.
Only 5 to 10 percent of the baseline and follow-up samples, respectively, had
tested for radon. The remaining respondents were asked to identify why they
had not tested. The reasons given have been categorized as follows:24
Uninformed:
Antitester:
Fatalists:
Not in Area:
Not in Home:
Respondent had never thought about it (and related
responses).
Respondent had some negative view of testing.
Respondent did not think anything could be done.
Respondent did not think radon was a problem in his or her
geographic area.
Respondent did not think radon was a problem in his or her
own home.
Procrastinator: Respondent had not gotten around to testing.
Other: All other responses, including "don't know."
24See Appendix 16 for a description of the responses included in each category.
-------
59
Figure 25 summarizes the changes in rationales given by non-testers
between the baseline and follow-up surveys. In both Frederick and Hagerstown,
the largest change occurred in the "procrastinator" category; 16 percent and 11
percent more respondents, respectively, said they hadn't gotten around to it. In
the comparison community, Randallstown, the change in this category was only
4 percent.
Another category where interesting changes occurred was the decreased
use of the reason that radon was "not in my area". This was true in all three
communities, with the largest decrease in Frederick. However, use of the
rationale that radon was "not in my home," actually increased in all three
communities—particularly in Frederick and Randallstown, where 8 percent more
respondents in both communities used this reason. This was not consistent
with the risk communication message that radon can be present not only in any
community but also in any home.
Finally, Frederick respondents in the follow-up survey were less likely to
say that they just had not thought about testing (or related "uninformed"
rationales) than respondents in the baseline, indicating greater awareness of
radon and testing. The greatest change between surveys for this category also
occurred in Frederick.
In summary, changes in the rationales for not testing would indicate that
there was a movement away from "never thought about it," to procrastination.
This was particularly true for respondents in Frederick, and to a lesser extent,
Hagerstown.25 A less expected change was the increased percentage of
respondents, particularly in Frederick and Randallstown, who gave as a reason
"not in my home."26 This change was not consistent with the message that all
homeowners should test to find out if they have a problem, and indicates that
there are other factors causing people not to personalize the risk from radon.
This is an area for further investigation and reinforces the importance of
personalizing radon risks through a communication message.
E. SUMMARY
The data indicate that exposure to radon communications increased
substantially during the Project period. The increased exposure resulted from the
EPA-MDE outreach activities as well as the WJLA campaign, leading to changes
in respondent awareness, knowledge, attitudes and testing behavior.
25Given the short time span of the Project and the relatively unfamiliar nature of radon risks, this
was a very positive change to observe between the two surveys.
26lt is not clear why some people feel personally at risk while others deny their own vulnerability.
"The Precaution Adoption Process," by Neil D. Weinstein, Health Psychology. 1988, 7(4), p. 362 describes
this phenomenon, ft remains a challenge for risk communicators to move people from an understanding of a
risk to personalization of the risk.
-------
60
Figure 25
Why Respondents Had Not Tested: Changes Between
Baseline and Follow-Up Surveys
FREDERICK
24
Uninformed Antitesters
Fatalists Not In Area Not In Home ProaastJnatois Other/Don't
Know
HAGERSTOWN
18
15
13
Uninformed Antitesters Fitalisu Not In Area Not In Home Procrastinmtors Other/Don't
Know
RANDALLSTOWN
18
14
Uninfonned Amitesiers Fatalists Not In Area Not In Home Procrasnruuors Other/Don't
Know
BASELINE 0 FOLLOWUP
-------
61
Newspapers and television were the main information sources cited by
respondents. Although the impact of television exceeds that of other media,
newspapers can also be a very effective means of communication. Radio reaches
a smaller audience than T.V. and newspapers and is thus a less effective means
of communicating.
The utility inserts were recalled by a fairly small audience (about l/5th of
respondents). However, if judged by the calls to the radon hotline, they do help
provide an incentive for some individuals to seek further information on radon.
The community outreach activities were more difficult to assess.
Nonetheless, this outreach appears to have played a role in disseminating radon
information and/or reinforcing other communications about radon during the
same period. The nature of the EPA-MDE community outreach in Frederick is
likely to have contributed to informal communication and talking about radon,
which plays an important role in explaining several indicators of effectiveness.
The testing of homes by local officials, in particular, seems to have had an impact
since this was specifically cited by a number of respondents as something they
recalled.
The greatest exposure to radon communications, both as a result of the
project outreach and the WJLA radon campaign, occurred in Frederick. This
exposure had an impact on the changes observed between the baseline and
follow-up surveys, since Frederick showed the greatest changes for all the
effectiveness indicators as compared to Hagerstown and Randallstown.
Awareness in Frederick increased by 18 percent between the baseline and follow-
up surveys, while performance on the knowledge quiz (percent answering three-
fourths or more of the questions correctly) improved by 24 percent. The percent
of respondents who said it is important to test increased by 11 percent, and testing
for radon increased by 9 percent.
Changes in these indicators also occurred in Hagerstown, though these
were of a lower magnitude than those in Frederick. This may either be attributed
to the greater exposure to WJLA in Frederick, given its proximity to Washington,
D.C. or to the enhanced Project outreach that included a community component.
Attempts were made to separate the effects of these various efforts through
statistical modeling. As a result, it appears that both this media campaign and
the EPA-MDE Project's community outreach played a role in explaining the
differences between Frederick and the other two communities.
The less expected outcome was the amount of change that occurred for
the effectiveness indicators in Randallstown, the comparison community.
While Hagerstown respondents performed slightly better than Randallstown
respondents overall on the different effectiveness indicators, the magnitude of
-------
62
the changes between baseline and follow-up were very similar in both
Hagerstown and Randallstown.
Given that Randallstown received no special EPA-MDE communications
during this period-compared with Frederick and Hagerstown—and that it
received less exposure to WJLA than the other two communities, it is possible
that the higher-than-expected changes in Randallstown are due to factors
unrelated to the communications themselves. Demographically, Randallstown
respondents were better educated and earned higher incomes than those in
Frederick and more especially, Hagerstown. As a relationship appears to exist
between education and income and some of the effectiveness indicators, this may
account for the changes observed in Randallstown between the baseline and
follow-up surveys, even though the special communications were not carried
out.
-------
63
V. CONCLUSIONS
A. What is Available
1. Radon Communication Materials
The radon materials developed and outreach methods tested in this
Project can be adapted by EPA Regional and State Radon Offices in their radon
risk communication strategies. The materials available as a result of this Project
are:
A 15-minute radon slide show with audio cassette
or on a video tape.
Five radio public service announcement scripts.
One prototype radon leaflet-front and back of an 8"
x 11" sheet of paper.
Four prototype radon posters.
The radon leaflet and posters were designed for Maryland (e.g., provide
the Maryland hotline number), but can be easily adapted by other States.
2. Information About Communication Outreach Methods Tested
Methods that were tested during the project period are:
Use of radio and newspaper media.
Unsolicited mailings through utility bill inserts.
Use of outside groups to communicate about radon
as a means of supplementing limited State/EPA
manpower resources.
Communicating about radon through a more
personalized community approach.
In addition to the EPA-MDE outreach, the WJLA campaign also provided
a test of a television campaign, combined with the sale of radon test kits at a
convenient location and at a reduced price.
-------
64
B. What Was Learned
1. Community Approach
The activities undertaken as part of the community outreach approach
appear to have resulted in some of the desired changes observed in Frederick
during the project period. Many of these activities, however, if organized by a
State Office, would require significant staff time commitments.
Organizing and publicizing some community events, such as local
officials testing their homes for radon, can be a successful communication
technique. Given limited State resources, such an activity might be most
appropriate in communities where high radon levels have been found and
special efforts are being made to publicize it. A community approach can also be
applied in the context of major employers within a community as a means of
reaching a large number of people. This would require fewer resources on the
part of communicators since their communications would be more concentrated
geographically.
Use of the radon posters and leaflets is recommended if these are adapted
by the State and made available for reproduction and distribution to othej groups
that are involved in communicating about radon risks. These groups will vary
by State, but might include the American Lung Association, American Medical
Association, State or county health officials, and extension workers.
The radon slide show can be an effective tool for State officials or others
who communicate about radon. If intermediaries are used, however, the State
should ensure that those intermediaries are familiar with the State program and
services provided (or not provided) by the State. To assist in this, a State using
the slide show may wish to add a few slides that describe the State program.
2. Unsolicited Mailings
Distribution of an unsolicited mailing through a utility bill insert was
easy to organize and involved no cost to the State. While a large number of
individuals will receive the insert, a smaller number are likely to actually read it.
A utility insert does not appear to be an adequate substitute for a more intensive
media or community outreach. However, it did help disseminate information
about radon and reinforced other forms of radon communication.
Given the ease with which the radon leaflet could be adapted and a utility
bill insert arranged, it is recommended that States consider unsolicited mailings
as a low-cost, low-resource method of communicating about radon. Other
-------
65
methods for distributing unsolicited mailings can also be used, such as through
property tax bills. It is best, however, if such mailings take place during the
heating season, when testing should be performed.
3. Media Approach
A television campaign, as might be expected, is a very effective means of
communicating about radon risks. The WJLA campaign is an example of a well-
designed, multi-media campaign that emphasized both education about radon
and sale of radon kits in a convenient location at a low price. This combination
resulted in a greater impact than expected by WJLA, the results of which were
observable in the three communities included in this study. States can
encourage, where appropriate, similar efforts by local TV stations.
Short of a television campaign like WJLA's, regular television features
are one means of communicating about radon, but are not necessarily the most
effective. Most people appear to usually obtain their information about radon
through newspapers. Organizing radon communications through newspaper
coverage is therefore a method that EPA Regional or State radon offices can use
and which requires far fewer resources than generating similar exposure on
television.
Radio is another low-cost means of communicating about radon, but its
effectiveness is lower than that of television or newspapers because a smaller
number of people (about one-third) get their information from this source. This
Project could not determine what effect, if any, the radio public service
announcements had. Nonetheless, given the low level of resources needed to
arrange for the use of radio public service announcements, this is an activity
States can easily include in their radon risk communication strategies. It is
suggested, however, that scripts rather than the more costly tapes be used. Radio
public service announcements should be a supplement to other communication
methods, not the main method.
4. Informal Communication Channels
The information gathered through this Project demonstrates the
importance of encouraging informal communication about radon. Individuals
who have talked to others about radon are more likely to be knowledgeable about
radon and to test. Thus, the more people who can be reached with a radon
message, the more this message is likely to be spread through informal channels.
The implications for States that have had little radon risk communication to-
date would be to start with those communication methods that reach a large
number of people (i.e., mass media), before focusing on more personalized
-------
66
communication techniques or those that target harder-to-reach socio-economic
groups.
C. Final Thoughts on the Evaluation of Risk Communications
Evaluating the effectiveness of risk communications is an important
aspect of communication that is often overlooked, but it can provide important
lessons for improving communications. This Project attempted both to develop
and evaluate the effectiveness of radon risk communication materials and
methods. Thus, in addition to providing some insights about the effectiveness of
the materials, this Project also provides some suggestions about the evaluation of
risk communication strategies by Regional or State offices.
The type of evaluation undertaken for this Project was much more
ambitious and resource-intensive than that which Regional or State Offices
should try to conduct. While a quantitative survey can be an effective
evaluation technique, it also has many limitations, as encountered in this project
(low response rates; confounding factors such as WJLA; a complex project
design), and an expensive price tag. There are a number of more qualitative
techniques that can be used (e.g., recording hotline calls, doing selected
interviews), that would be less costly and still provide useful feedback.
Where a formal quantitative survey methodology is deemed appropriate,
the survey design should be as simple as possible and focus on the most salient
information. Even much smaller samples, e.g., a sample of 100, can provide very
helpful information and would be sufficient to determine the effects of a
program on knowledge and attitudes (though not large enough to measure
changes in testing). Where resources are limited or a quantitative survey less
appropriate, qualitative evaluation techniques can be used. These can range from
interviews in a community where special communication efforts occurred,
keeping a record of calls to the State, or recording the number of individuals
attending a presentation. Some form of evaluation should be incorporated into a
communication strategy from the outset; however, it need not be overly
resource-intensive.
-------
Appendices
-------
APPENDICES
Appendix 1:
Appendix 2:
Appendix 3:
Appendix 4:
Appendix 5:
Appendix 6:
Appendix 7:
Appendix 8:
Appendix 9:
Appendix 10:
Appendix 11:
Appendix 12:
Appendix 13:
Appendix 14:
Appendix 15:
Advisory Group Members
Survey Questionnaire Form
Hotline Survey Form
Summary of Risk Communication Literature and
Theory
Summary of Focus Group Findings
Radio PSA Scripts
Frederick News-Post Articles
Hagerstown Herald-Mail Print Ads
Sites of Radon Poster and Flyer Distribution
Frederick Community Group Presentations
Radon Slide Show Script
WJLA Radon Flyer
Graphs for Hagerstown and Randallstown
Follow-Up Survey Tester/Non-tester
Performance on Knowledge Questions
Regression Model: Knowledge
Categorization of Responses for Respondent
Reasons for Not Testing
-------
Appendix 1: Advisory Group Members
Name
Miles Allen
Jesse Baskerville
Lee Blackburn
Alan Carlin
Pam Cooper
Don DeBlasio
Ray Feldmann
Lew Felleisen
Ann Fisher
Roland Fletcher
Jason Gaertner
Tim Hartmann
Keith Hinds
Larry Jensen
Miles Kahn
Renate Kimbrough
Larainne Koehler
Mel Kollander
Steve Page
Chris Rice
Office
Office of Public Affairs
Region 3/Air Management Division
Region 3/Public Affairs Office
Office of Policy Analysis
Environmental Results Branch
Region 5/Public Affairs Office
Maryland Department of the Environment
Region 3/Air Management Division
Office of Policy Analysis
Maryland Department of the Environment
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources
Office of Policy, Planning & Evaluation
Region 5/Radiation Representative
Office of Radiation Programs
Office of Regional Operations
Region 2/Office of Radiation Programs
Statistical Policy Branch
Office of Radiation Programs
Office of Public Affairs
Hank Schilling Office of Legislative Analysis
-------
APPENDIX 2:
RADON RISK COMMUNICATION PROJECT SURVEY
QUESTIONNAIRE
-------
Telephone No RTI I.D. OMB 2010-0014
Expires 5/88
Radon Information Effectiveness Survey:
Maryland Baseline Screener
Final Interview Code
01 Ineligible, Not Residential Number 06 Answering Machine/Service 11 Language Barrier
02 Ineligible, Not Homeowner 07 No Result From Dial 12 Interview Completed
03 Ring, No Answer 08 Fast Busy/Computer Tone 13 Partial Data
04 Nonworking Number 09 Unable to Contact 14 Final Interview Refusal
05 Double Wrong Connection 10 Physically/Mentally Incompetent 15 Other
Hello, my name is I'm calling from the Research Triangle Institute (RTI), in North
Carolina. We are. conducting a study on what people know and think about environmental issues. It
won't take much of your time and your answers will be kept strictly confidential. (Additional information,
if necessary: Your cooperation is very important because we want to find out what the general public
knows about environmental issues. This is not a sales call. The study is sponsored by the State of
Maryland.)
1. Isthis - - ?
Yes 01 - CONTINUE
No 02 - "Thank You," HANG UP
2. Does this number serve a: (READ ALL CHOICES, MARK ONE.)
Residence 01 - CONTINUE
Business/institution 02
Or something else- 03
\ - "Thank You," HANG UP
3. Do you own your residence?
Yes 01 - CONTINUE
No 02 - TERMINATE
4. As part of our study, I need to randomly choose an adult who makes or shares in important
household decisions. Please tell me the first names of the adult decisionmakers in your household.
(IF RESPONDENT CAN'T ANSWER, ASK FOR ADULT, REPEAT INTRODUCTION.)
1. Woman's Name: 2. Man's Name:
Third Decisionmaker: Fourth Decisionmaker:
(TO CHOOSE RESPONDENT, LOOK AT LABEL AND CHOOSE THE FIRST NAME IF THE NUMBER IS A "1"
OR THE SECOND NAME IF ITS A "2". IF YOU HAVE TWO MEN OR TWO WOMEN DECISIONMAKERS,
JUST WRITE THE SECOND NAME IN THE MAN'S SPACE AND FOLLOW THE SAME CHOICE SELECTION
RULE. IF MORE THAN TWO DECISIONMAKERS, THEN CONSULT YOUR RANDOM SELECTION TABLE.
CIRCLE NUMBER OF PERSON SELECTED.)
May I please speak to NAME OF SELECTED DECISIONMAKER. (IF NOT AVAILABLE, SCHEDULE A
CALLBACK.)
READ INTRODUCTION IF PERSON ANSWERING IS NOT THE RESPONDENT.
TERMINATION
Thank you very much for your cooperation. Our study involves only homeowners, so I won't
need any more of your time. Thank you again for your help.
-------
OMB 2010-0014
Expires 5/88
Communicating Radon Risk Effectively:
Maryland Baseline Survey
Telephone #
RTI ID #
1. Compared to other issues the State of Maryland faces, do you think environmental issues are:
(READ LIST; CIRCLE ONE NUMBER.)
a. MORE IMPORTANT 01
b. JUST AS IMPORTANT 02
c. LESS IMPORTANT 03
d. DONT KNOW (DON'T READ) 94
2. We're interested in finding out how serious you think the risks from some types of pollution are to
your community and to your household. On a scale from 1 to 10, with 1 meaning NOT AT ALL
SERIOUS and 10 meaning VERY SERIOUS, please tell me how serious you think the risks from
each type of pollution are to your community and to your household. (READ LIST, SCALE, AND
CATEGORIES; PROBE FOR NUMBER.)
Not at all
Serious
Very
Serious
I I I I I I
I I
10
Your
community
Your
household
a. LEAD IN DRINKING WATER
b. HAZARDOUS WASTES IN LANDFILLS .
c. RADON IN HOMES
For the rest of the interview I'm going to ask questions mainly about one of the sources I
mentioned—radon in homes. During the past few months, have you seen or heard anything
about radon? (CIRCLE ONE NUMBER.)
a. YES
b. NO
c. DONT KNOW (DONT READ) .
01
021
94)
Skip to Question 5
on page 3
-------
QUESTK13 4 @2>s@35SK SBSVEY
4A. In the past few months have you seen anything in a newspaper or magazine or heard anything
on the radio or TV about radon?
a- YES 01 *> Continue
b- N0 02 +> Skip to Question 48
Was that in the newspaper or magazine, or was it on the radio or TV?
(CIRCLE ALL THAT APPLY.)
a. NEWSPAPER 01 c. RADIO 03
b. MAGAZINE 02 d. TV 04
4B. Have you seen or heard any public service ads about radon in a newspaper or magazine, or on
the radio or TV in the past few months?
a- YES 01 +- Continue
b NO 02 *• Skip to Question 4C
Was that in the newspaper or magazine, or was it on the radio or TV?
(CIRCLE ALL THAT APPLY.)
a. NEWSPAPER 01 c. RADIO 03
b. MAGAZINE 02 d. TV 04
4C. Have you seen a poster, read a utility bill insert, or heard a presentation about radon in the past
few months?
a. YES 01 >• Continue
b. NO 02 *> Skip to Question 4D
Was that a poster or utility bill insert? (CIRCLE ALL THAT APPLY.)
a. POSTER 01
b. UTILITY BILL INSERT 02
c. PRESENTATION 03
4D. Have you talked about radon with a friend, relative, or coworker in the past few months?
a. YES 01 >- Continue
b. NO 02 >• Skip to Question 4E
Was that a friend, relative, or coworker? (CIRCLE ALL THAT APPLY.)
a. FRIEND 01 c. COWORKER 03
b. RELATIVE 02
4E. Have you called the State of Maryland toll-free number for radon information?
a. YES 01
b. NO 02
4F. In the past few months have you learned anything about radon in some other way?
a. YES 01 *• How was that?
b. NO 02
-------
QUESTION 4 - FOLLOW-UP SURVEY
4A. In the past few months have you seen anything in a newspaper or magazine or heard anything on
the radio or TV about radon?
^ YES 01 *- Continue
b NO 02 >• Skip to Question 4C
on page 3
4B. (1) Was that in a newspaper?
a YES m ^ Continue
k NO 02 *• Skip to Question 4B, part (2)
Please tell me the general theme or any details about what you saw in the newspaper.
(PROBE FOR EACH SELECTION TO FIND OUT IF IT WAS A PUBLIC SERVICE
ANNOUNCEMENT. DO NOT READ LIST.)
Public Service
Announcement
BABY WITH CIGARETTES 01 \ 01
HOUSE Wrm ARROWS COMING FROM GROUND 02 Was this a 01
HEALTH AD WITH FOOD, EXERCISE, ETC. 03 ^0^°* W
ZIP CODES OF AREAS WITH HIGH RADON LEVELS 04 ^ ment? |f YES, 01
ANNOUNCEMENT OF MEETING ABOUT RADON 05 circle 01 01
STATE RADON HOTLINE TELEPHONE NUMBER 06 01
ARTICLE/STORY/EDITORIAL 07 01
OTHER (SPECIFY) . . 08 / 01
(2) Was that in a magazine?
a. YES 01 • •»• Continue
b. NO 02 *- Skip to Question 4B, part (3)
Please tell me the general theme or any details about what you saw in the magazine. (PROBE
FOR EACH SELECTION TO FIND OUT IF IT WAS A PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT.
DO NOT READ LIST.)
SPECIFY 1
SPECIFY 2
01
02
(3) Was that on the radio?
a. YES
b. NO
Was this a
Public Service
Announce-
ment? If YES,
circle 01
Public Service
Announcement
01
01
Continue
Skip to Question 4B, part (4)
on page3
Please tell me the general theme or any details about what you heard on the radio. (PROBE
FOR EACH SELECTION TO RND OUT IF IT WAS A PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT.
DO NOT READ LIST.)
SPECIFY 1
SPECIFY 2
SPECIFY 3
SPECIFY 4
01
02
03
04
Was this a
Public Service
Announce-
ment? If YES,
circle 01
Public Service
Announcement
01
01
01
01
-------
(4) Was that on TV?
a. YES. 01 >• Continue
b. NO 02 *• Skip to Question 4C
Please tell me the general theme or any details about what you saw on TV. (PROBE FOR
EACH SELECTION TO FIND OUT IF IT WAS A PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT. DO
NOT READ LIST.) B wi c .
Public Service
Announcement
PUBLIC SERVICE AD WITH JOHN GLENN 01 \ Was this a 01
LITTLE GIRL WITH GAS MASK 02
PUBLIC SERVICE AD WITH SENATOR WARNER OF VIRGINIA 03
PUBLIC SERVICE AD WITH A FAMILY 04
ROBERTA BASKIN ON WJLA-TV/CHANNEL 7 RADON WATCH 05
OTHER (SPECIFY) . . 06
Public Service 01
Announce-
ment? If YES, 01
circle 01 01
01
01
4C. Have you seen a poster, read a utility bill insert, or heard a presentation/slide show about radon in
the past few months?
a. YES 01 ^ Continue
b. NO 02 >• Skip to Question 4D
Was that a poster, utility bill insert, or a presentation? (CIRCLE ALL THAT APPLY.)
(1) POSTER 01
Please briefly describe the poster or posters you saw. (CIRCLE ALL THAT APPLY. DO NOT
READ LIST.)
BABY WITH CIGARETTES 01
HOUSE WITH ARROWS COMING FROM GROUND 02
HEALTH AD WITH FOOD, EXERCISE, ETC. 03
ZIP CODES OF AREAS WITH HIGH RADON LEVELS 04
OTHER (SPECIFY) . . 05
(2) UTILITY BILL INSERT 02
(3) PRESENTATION/SLIDE SHOW 03
What organization was responsible for this presentation/slide show?
4D. Did you see any other printed information about radon?
a. YES 01 >• Continue
b. NO 02 *• Skip to Question 4E
on page 4
Where did you get this printed information? (CIRCLE ALL THAT APPLY. DON'T READ LIST.)
THE STATE OF MARYLAND 01
THE U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 02 Who published this
WJLA-TV CHANNEL 7/RADON WATCH 03 information?
AMERICAN LUNG ASSOCIATION/AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY . 04
AT A LOCAL STORE OR MERCHANT 05
Specify
AT THE LIBRARY 06 -
A REAL ESTATE AGENT/TRANSACTION 07 - SpQcjfy -
TESTING COMPANY 08 Spec//y >
OTHER (SPECIFY) . . 09 »>
DONT KNOW 94
-------
4E. Have you talked about radon with a friend, relative, or coworker in the past few months?
a. YES 01 >• Continue
b. NO 02 *> Skip to Question 4F
Was that a friend, relative, or coworker? (CIRCLE ALL THAT APPLY.)
a. FRIEND 01 c. COWORKER 03
b. RELATIVE 02
4F. Have you called the State of Maryland toll-free number for radon information?
a. YES 01
b. NO 02
4G. In the past few months have you learned anything about radon in some other way?
a. YES 01 *• How was that?
b. NO 02
-------
5. Information about radon comes from many sources. If you wanted to know more about radon,
which government agency would you contact? (DO NOT READ LIST; CIRCLE THE AGENCY.)
a. MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT 01
b. MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND MENTAL HYGIENE 02
c. LOCAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT 03
d. U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 04
e. OTHER (SPECIFY) 05
f. DONT KNOW (DON'T READ) 94
6. If you wanted to learn about radon-related health problems, which of the following sources would
you trust the most to give you that information? (READ LIST; CIRCLE ONE NUMBER.)
a. MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT 01
b. MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND MENTAL HYGIENE 02
c. LOCAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT 03
d. U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 04
e. FAMILY DOCTOR 05
f. SOME OTHER SOURCE (SPECIFY) 06
g. NO ONE (DONT READ) 07
h. DONT KNOW (DON'T READ) 94
7. People have different opinions about radon. How much do you agree or disagree that the
following statements are your opinion? (READ ANSWER CHOICES AFTER FIRST STATEMENT.)
Strongly
agree
01 ..
Agree
. . . 02 . . .
Disagree
. . . . 03 . .
Strongly
disagree
... 04 . ...
Don't
know
...94
a. IT IS IMPORTANT TO TEST
MY HOME TO FIND OUT IF
I HAVE A RADON PROBLEM
b. IF I HAD A RADON PROBLEM,
IT WOULD BE COSTLY TO FIX 01 02 03 04 94
c. EVEN IF A RADON PROBLEM
WAS FIXED, MY HOME WOULD
STILL BE WORTH A LOT LESS 01 02 03 04 94
-------
8A. Have you had your home tested for radon? (CIRCLE ONE NUMBER.)
a YES 01 ^ Continue
b N0 °2 j * Skip to Question 9
c. DONT KNOW (DON'TREAD) 94)
8B. When did you get your results? /
(If "don't know", enter "94/94") MONTH/YEAR
8C. Were the results over 4 picocuries per liter?
a YES 01 *• Continue
b. NO
C. DONT KNOW (DONT READ)
> >• Skip to Question 11
94) K
Skip to Question 11
8D. Did you do followup testing, anything to fix the problem, both, or nothing?
a. FOLLOWUP TESTING 01
b. FIX PROBLEM 02
c. BOTH 03
d. NOTHING 04
e. DONT KNOW (DON'T READ) 94
9. People may have various reasons for deciding not to have their home tested for radon. What is
the main reason you have not had yours tested. (DON'T READ LIST; ALL THAT APPLY.)
a. NEVER THOUGHT ABOUT IT 01 i. WOULD RATHER NOT KNOW IF
b. DIDNT KNOW IT WAS POSSIBLE . . . . 02 THERE IS A PROBLEM °9
a DONT THINK I HAVE A PROBLEM '" NOTHING CAN BE DONE ABOUT
c. UUIN I i niiNrv i n/we M rnuDLCM RADON ANYWAY 1f)
IN MY HOME 03 HAUUN ANYWAY 1U
d DIDNT KNOW HOW TO TEST 04 k' F1XING A PROBLEM IS TOO EXPENSIVE 11
e. THOUGHT TESTING WAS TOO L CONCERNED ABOUT CONFIDENTIALITY 12
EXPENSIVE 05 m. JUST HAVENT GOTTEN AROUND TO IT . . . . 13
f. DONT THINK TESTS ARE RELIABLE 06 n. OTHER (SPECIFY) 14
g. NOT INTERESTED 07 o. DONT KNOW (DONT READ) 94
h. DIDNT KNOW IT WAS A
PROBLEM IN THIS AREA 08
10. Suppose your local health department was offering a radon test for a one-time cost of $10, $25,
$50, $100. The cost would cover two radon detectors, the results, and a booklet about radon.
Would you take part in such a radon testing program? (CIRCLE ONE NUMBER.)
a. YES 01
b. NO 02
c. DONT KNOW (DONT READ) 94
11. Suppose you are just moving to this area and you want a home like the one you're in now. You
have narrowed the choice to two houses that are almost identical. The only difference is that
House 1 has radon levels 2, 5 times higher than the government's guidelines for action, while
House 2 has no radon but costs an additional $5,000, $10,000, $15,000, $20,000 Which house
would you buy? (CIRCLE ONE NUMBER.)
a. HOUSE 1 01
b. HOUSE 2 . . . . . . 02
a DONT KNOW (DONT READ) 94
-------
Some people have heard a great deal about radon while others have heard very little. We're interested
in learning how much people know about radon. For the next group of questions, I am going to read
you three choices. Please tell me which answer you think is best. If "don't know" is your best answer,
then say that.
Record
Responses
12. Where does most radon in homes come from?
a. INDUSTRIAL POLLUTION 01
b. NATURAL URANIUM IN SOIL 02
c. OR HOME APPLIANCES 03
d. DONT KNOW (DON'T READ) 94
13. Which of the following best describes radon? Radon has:
a. A SLIGHT ODOR 01
b. A STRONG ODOR 02
c. OR NO ODOR AT ALL 03
d. DONT KNOW (DONT READ) 94
14. When radon is measured in a home, which of the following will affect the level?
a. THE TIME OF YEAR IT'S MEASURED 01
b. THE AMOUNT OF INDUSTRIAL POLLUTION AROUND THE HOME 02
c. OR THE NUMBER OF APPLIANCES IN THE HOME 03
d. DONT KNOW (DONT READ) , 94
15. How can you test your home for radon?
a. YOU CAN DO IT WITH A HOME TEST 01
b. ONLY TRAINED PERSONNEL CAN TEST 02
c. OR YOU CANNOT TEST FOR RADON 03
d. DONT KNOW (DON'T READ) 94
16. When do health problems from being exposed to radon usually occur?
a. WITHIN A FEW WEEKS 01
b. IN A FEW YEARS 02
c. OR NOT FOR 10 TO 30 YEARS 03
d. DONT KNOW (DONT READ) 94
17. What kind of health problems are high levels of radon exposure likely to cause?
a. MINOR SKIN PROBLEMS 01
b. EYE IRRITATIONS 02
c. OR LUNG CANCER 03
d. DONT KNOW (DONT READ) 94
18. What can homeowners do to reduce high radon levels in their homes?
a. REMOVE THE APPLIANCES CAUSING THE PROBLEM 01
b. HIRE A CONTRACTOR TO FIX THE PROBLEM 02
c. OR THERE IS NO WAY TO FIX THE PROBLEM 03
d. DONT KNOW (DONT READ) 94
-------
19. People sometimes describe themselves in various ways. For each statement I read please tell me
if these things are true about you always, often, sometimes, or never. (READ LIST AND SCALE;
CIRCLE ONE NUMBER FOR EACH STATEMENT.)
Always
Often
Sometimes
Never
Don't
know
a. I TRY TO FIX THINGS
AROUND THE HOUSE 01 02
b. I EXERCISE AND/OR WATCH
WHAT I EAT TO PROTECT MY
HEALTH
c. I ASK MY PHYSICIAN A LOT
OF QUESTIONS ABOUT MY
HEALTH
01.
01.
02
02
d. I WAIT UNTIL I HAVE A LOT OF
INFORMATION BEFORE I DECIDE
TO BUY SOMETHING LIKE A NEW
APPLIANCE 01 02
a I QUESTION INFORMATION FROM
EXPERTS OR OTHER AUTHORITIES
01.
02
03
03
03
03
03
04.
04.
04.
04.
04.
94
94
94
94
94
20. Please tell me how active you are in each of the following types of organizations or activities.
(READ LIST AND SCALE; CIRCLE ONE NUMBER FOR EACH STATEMENT.)
a. CIVIC CLUB (KIWANIS, LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS) .
b. CHURCH OR RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATION
c. VOLUNTEER ACTIVITIES (RED CROSS, UNITED WAY)
OTERS) . .
D WAY) . .
Very
active
01
. 01
01 ...
Somewhat
active
02
02
02
Not at all
active
03
03
03
Don't
know
94
94
... 94
-------
Now, we have just a few more general background questions.
21. About how many years have you lived at this address? YEARS
22. Is your home a: (READ LIST; CIRCLE ONE NUMBER.)
a. SINGLE-FAMILY HOME 01 d. TOWNHOUSE 04
b. MOBILE HOME 02 e. CONDOMINIUM 05
c. DUPLEX 03 f. DONT KNOW (DON'T READ) 94
23. To the best of your knowledge was your home built: (READ LIST; CIRCLE ONE NUMBER.)
a. BEFORE 1940 01 c. AFTER 1976 03
b. BETWEEN 1940 AND 1976 02 d. DONT KNOW (DONT READ) 94
24. Are you planning to move during the next year? (CIRCLE ONE NUMBER.)
a. YES 01
b. MAYBE 02
c. NO 03
d. DONT KNOW (DONT READ) 94
25. Does your home have a basement? (CIRCLE ONE NUMBER.)
a. YES 01
b NO 02)
| *• Skip to Question 27
c. DONT KNOW (DONTREAD) 94' On page 8
26. Is any part of your basement used as living space by you or your family?
(CIRCLE ONE NUMBER.)
a. YES - 01
b. NO 02
c. DONT KNOW (DONT READ) 94
-------
27. How many people are there in your household?
28. How many children under 12?
29. Do you smoke cigarettes or other tobacco products? (CIRCLE ONE NUMBER.)
a. YES 01
b. NO °2
30. Does anyone else in your household smoke? (CIRCLE ONE NUMBER.)
a. YES 01
b. NO °2
31. What was the highest grade of school that you completed? (CIRCLE ONE NUMBER.)
a. NO SCHOOL 01 e. SOME COLLEGE (13-15) 05
b. GRADE SCHOOL (1-8) 02 f. COLLEGE GRADUATE (16) 06
c. SOME HIGH SCHOOL (9-11) 03 g. POSTGRADUATE (17+) 07
d. HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATE (12) ... 04
32. What is your age? YEARS
33. Is your racial or ethnic background (CIRCLE ONE NUMBER.)
a. WHITE OR CAUCASIAN 01 d. ASIAN OR PACIRC ISLANDER .... 04
b. BLACK OR NEGRO 02 a NATIVE AMERICAN INDIAN 05
c. HISPANIC 03
34. (ASK ONLY IF UNCLEAR.) What is your sex? (CIRCLE ONE NUMBER.)
a. MALE 01
b. FEMALE 02
35. I'm going to read a list of income categories for FAMILY income from all sources BEFORE taxes
during 1986. Please tell me to stop when I get to yours. (CIRCLE ONE NUMBER.)
a. $5fX>0 OR UNDER 01 e. $35,001 - $50,000 05
b. $5,001 - $15,000 02 f. $50,001 - $65,000 06
c. $15,001 - $25,000 03 g. $65,001 - $80,000 07
d. $25,001 - $35,000 04 h. $80,001 AND OVER 08
36. If you had to sell your home today, what do you think your home and property would sell for?
$ (PROBE FOR APPROXIMATE)
Thank you very much for your cooperation.
Your answers will be most helpful in this study.
-------
APPENDIX 3; RADON HOTLINE SURVEY FORM
Hotline call: yes no Date:
Name of Caller:
Street Address:
City, Zip Code:
Where did you hear about radon? (do not read list)
Newspaper Television
Utility insert Phone directory
Poster Public meeting
Radio Radon flyer
Family/friend/neighbor Magazine
Other (specify)
-------
APPENDIX 4:
SUMMARY OF RISK COMMUNICATION LITERATURE AND THEORY
-------
LITERATURE REVIEW:
COMMUNICATING ABOUT RADON RISKS—MESSAGE, SOURCE, AUDIENCE, MEDIA
To learn more about designing effective radon risk
communication materials, the Project Team reviewed previous
efforts to communicate about radon and other health risks. The
team examined results of radon communication studies done in New
York, New Jersey, and Maine, and other relevant radon and risk
communication literature, and held discussions with individuals
involved in radon or risk communication programs. The key
findings relevant to radon risk communication are classified here
by: a) message content, b) source of message, c) target audience
and d) method of communication.
Message Content
Many people seriously underestimate the health consequences
of radon and the likelihood of their own exposure. Comparing
radon to other more commonly encountered risks, such as cigarette
smoking, may put the risk in perspective. However, caution
should be used in comparing voluntary and involuntary risks.
Individuals need to be made aware that radon is a serious
risk, and also that they can do something about it. A message
must make it clear that it is simple and relatively inexpensive
to test for radon, and that high levels of radon can be reduced
at a cost comparable to other home repairs. Finally, people
should be told where they can get more information.
To overcome an individual's perception of immunity ("it won't
happen to me"), radon risks need to be put in personal terms.
One way to personalize a radon risk is to develop a message that
identifies specific geographic areas in which the audience lives.
If the message about radon risk is localized as much as possible
to the State, county, or even community level, people are more
likely to take the risk seriously.
Source of Message
A risk communication message is more likely to be heeded if
it comes from a source that is trusted and perceived to be free
of vested interests in the outcome. In a community context,
credibility can be heightened if the source is endorsed by a
local leader. Similarly, endorsement by a credible resident or
peer, such as a homeowner who has tested for radon, can be
1For a more comprehensive discussion of the risk communication
literature review and references, refer to the OPPE/Region III
Radon Risk Communication Project Interim Report. November, 1987.
-------
peer, such as a homeowner who has tested for radon, can be
effective in communicating a risk message.
The person who presents a message should be someone who is
viewed as knowledgeable about the subject of radon. In the
context of a community presentation on radon, the presenter
should be capable of fielding audience questions. The person's
ability to communicate well, however, is as important his
expertise.
Target Audience
A message is most effective when it is targeted to a specific
audience or sub-group of the population than when it attempts to
reach everyone at the same time. Data from other radon studies
suggest that the typical tester is likely to be a well educated
non-smoker about 40 years of age with children under ten. There
is some indication that women are more likely to buy test kits
than men.
Methods of Communication
Two of the more common approaches for communicating about
health risks are through the mass media and through a community
outreach program. Each of these approaches has strengths and
weaknesses.
In general, people tend to get most of their information
through the mass media, whether they read newspapers, watch
television, or listen to the radio. Media reach large numbers
and diverse types of people. A media approach is usually
successful in raising the general level of awareness of a given
issue, but is less successful at disseminating a complex message
and educating the public. While public service announcements
(PSAs) can have some impact in communicating about health risks,
their results tend to be limited, especially if the PSA is not
given sufficient air time or is played at odd hours. Paid
advertisements are more effective because one can choose the times
when they will be aired, but their cost is usually prohibitive.
A community approach, on the other hand, allows for specific
targeting of a message to the audience, making the message more
relevant to those hearing it. Complex messages can be conveyed
more easily, and personal contact or the use of respected local
and community leaders adds legitimacy to the effort.
The community approach, however, does not reach as many people
in the short term as a media approach. It takes more time for the
message to be disseminated, because it requires more face to face
contact. The community approach can also be very resource
intensive.
-------
In reviewing the literature on evaluations of risk
communication projects, it appeared that neither a mass media nor
a community approach, on its own, could guarantee success without
unrealistically large expenditures of financial and human
resources. Generally, a combined media and community approach is
thought to be most effective, although few successful case
studies exist.
-------
APPENDIX 5:
SUMMARY OF FOCUS GROUP FINDINGS
-------
FOCUS GROUPS
Although radon is only a recently identified environmental
risk, there has been intensive public communications about radon
in some parts of the country. In these areas where radon
awareness has been heightened, some individuals have chosen to
test their homes, while others have not. The project team
believed that some valuable information could be gained by
convening focus groups of individuals who had tested and not
tested in communities where radon awareness is high.
Focus groups are qualitative research tools that provide a
forum for group discussions. While the qualitative evidence from
focus groups is suggestive only and cannot be extrapolated to
larger groups, it can yield valuable insights into citizens'
perceptions and motivations. For the purposes of this study,
four focus groups were convened—two in Westminster, Maryland and
two in York, Pennsylvania. In Westminster, one group consisted
of testers and the other group of non-testers. In York, testers
and non-testers were mixed and the groups were divided on the
basis of education, with one group of college-educated and
another group of high school-educated participants. The focus
group sessions sought to probe why some individuals had tested on
the basis of available information and why others had not.
Copies of the focus group reports are available through the
Program Evaluation Division. Although findings from these groups
cannot be extrapolated to the entire population, some interesting
findings relevant to the project design emerged.
Personalizing the Risk
The focus groups showed the importance of "personalizing" the
risks of radon. In both Westminster and York, individuals who
tested perceived radon as a threat to themselves and their
homes. With one exception, all testers had spoken with neighbors
or family about radon or knew someone else who had tested before
they made the decision to test.
Non-testers, on the other hand, distanced themselves from
radon risks. They dwelled on the unknowns about radon and found
a variety of reasons to justify inaction, even when they were
concerned about potential health risks. While non-testers in
Westminster conceded that radon was a serious problem in their
community and neighborhood, most believed radon was a less
serious problem in their own homes. Non-testers in York believed
radon was a problem only in neighboring Lancaster, where there
had been more publicity on radon than in their community. Non
testers in both York and Westminster did not know anyone who had
tested and had not discussed radon with others.
-------
Knowledge of Radon
Knowledge and. awareness of radon were similar for testers and
non-testers with a college education. The key difference
appeared to be whether the risk had been personalized. For the
group of high school-educated non-testers in York, however,
knowledge and awareness of radon was very limited. Many of these
participants harbored a variety of misconceptions about radon
which may have inhibited a decision to test.
Health Risks
Concerns about health risks associated with radon can motivate
individuals to test their homes. These concerns
sometimes center around the potential risk to children. College
educated non-testers questioned the validity of existing risk
data and how standards have been established, and believed that
existing information is inadequate to justify concern. A number
of the high school-educated non-testers and one tester in York,
however, mistakenly associated radon with acute respiratory
problems rather than an increased risk of lung cancer.
The perception that radon is just another one of a multitude
of potential environmental hazards also inhibits testing. Some
non-testers commented that there was no reason to assign a higher
priority to radon than to other indoor or outdoor air pollutants.
A non-tester in York also believed he faced a much higher risk
from nearby Three Mile Island and that radon was not very serious
in comparison.
Property Value Concerns
Concerns about property values were both a motivating and
inhibiting factor in radon testing. Testers spoke of wanting to
test if they foresaw a move in the future or to give themselves a
chance, if necessary, to "get out from under it before this thing
got blown out of proportion." For testers, the potential
implications of radon levels on property values motivated them to
learn about their levels early. Non-testers, on the other hand,
felt that if they did not test their home they would not be
obliged to disclose the results of their test when selling. For
them, the concern about property values was a disincentive when
considering testing.
Perception about Testing and Mitigation
People who have tested view the process as simple, convenient
and inexpensive. Non-testers on the other hand, were not as
clear on the cost of tests, where to obtain them, and how to use
them. When informed of the actual cost of the test, all said it
was so low it would not be a consideration in their decision.
Convenience also appears to be a factor influencing testing.
Some non-testers stated they would purchase a test if it were
easily available, such as in a grocery or hardware store.
-------
Perceptions about mitigation appear to have some bearing on
the testing decision, particularly for non-testers. Many non-
testers perceive that mitigation is impossible, expensive,
complicated, and likely to make them vulnerable to unscrupulous
contractors. These perceptions lead non-testers to prefer not to
know if they have a problem.
Length of Residence in Community
According to the focus groups, the length of residence in a
community may have an impact on the decision to test. New
residents in a community were more likely to test than long-term
residents. Long-term residents believed that because they had
not yet been adversely affected by radon, they had no reason to
worry- New residents, however, were more likely to pay attention
to information about their new area, including information on
environmental risks.
Where Radon Information is Obtained
Newspapers and television were the main sources of radon
awareness and information. All but one tester in the focus
groups had discussed radon with friends or family. Articles
publicizing a toll-free telephone number enabled some testers to
obtain additional information from their State government. Non
testers obtained their information from the similar newspaper
articles and television programs, but did not discuss it with
other individuals. Understanding of the substantive information
presented in newspaper articles was more limited among the
high school-educated non-testers as compared to the college-
educated non-testers. This former group was also less likely to
read about radon in the newspaper.
Credibility of Source
Among testers, EPA and the state environmental agency were
rated very highly in terms of perceived credibility of
information. Those who had contacts with either EPA or the state
agency appeared to be satisfied with the information and services
they had obtained. Non-testers did not rate EPA and the State as
highly as testers did, but still perceived them as the most
credible sources of information.
-------
APPENDIX 6:
RADIO PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT SCRIPTS
-------
Responsible homeowner (:30)
(no music, man's voice)
You're a pretty responsible homeowner, right? You try to protect
your investment and your family. Or do you? Have you tested your
house for radon? Radon is a radioactive gas that seeps into houses
from the ground. High levels can cause lung cancer. But there are
things you can do. A simple test can tell you if you have a
problem. If you do, it can be fixed. To find out more, call the
State of Maryland radon hotline. 1-800-872-3666. That's
1-800-872-3666.
Responsible homeowner (:20)
(no music, man's voice)
You're a pretty responsible homeowner, right? You try to protect
your investment and your family. Or do you? Have you tested your
house for radon? Radon is a radioactive gas that seeps into houses
from the ground. High levels can cause lung cancer. To find out
more, call the State of Maryland radon hotline. 1-800-872-3666.
Responsible homeowner (;10)
(no music, man's voice)
Have you tested your house for radon? Radon is a radioactive gas
that seeps into houses from the ground. High levels can cause lung
cancer. Call the Maryland radon hotline. 1-800-872-3666.
-------
If someone told, you (;30)
(music, woman's voice)
What would you do if someone told you there was a chance your
home could contain high levels of a radioactive gas called radon?
First you'd want some answers. You'd want to know what radon is,
where it comes from, how you could test your home for radon, and
what you could do about it if you did find it. For answers to
these and other radon questions, call the Maryland radon hotline
at 1-800-872-3666. That's 1-800-872-3666.
If someone told you (:20)
(no music, woman's voice)
What would you do if someone told you there was a chance your
home could contain high levels of a radioactive gas called radon?
You'd want to know what radon is, where it comes from, how you
could test your home for radon, and what you could do about it if
you did find it. Call the Maryland radon hotline at
1-800-872-3666.
If someone told you (;10)
(no music, woman's voice)
Some homes in Western Maryland contain high levels of a
radioactive gas called radon. For more information, call the
radon hotline today. 1-800-872-3666.
-------
Heard of it (;30)
music, man's voice)
Radon, ever heard of it? A lot of people haven't, even though
it's been found in many homes in Western Maryland. Radon is a
dangerous radioactive gas that can cause lung cancer. It seeps
into homes from the ground. The Maryland Department of
Environment urges you to test your home for radon this winter.
To find out how, call the Maryland radon hotline. The toll-free
number is 1-800-872-3666. That's 1-800-872-3666.
-------
Neighbors/easy (;30)
Announcer: A public service message from the State of
Maryland.
(outdoor noises, mailbox)
Steve: Hey Bill, I just got my radon test results in the mail.
Looks like we're ok. Have you tested your home yet?
Bill: Nah, with all those new health hazards they keep coming
up with, it's not worth the effort.
Steve: Sorry friend, that's where you're wrong. This is one
problem that you can do something about. You order a
test kit through the mail, put it in your house' for a
couple of days, then send it back to the company for
analysis. In a few weeks, they send you your results.
Bill: Sounds pretty easy.
Steve: it is. And now we know our home is safe.
Announcer: For more information, call the Maryland radon
hotline at 1-800-872-3666. That's 1-800-872-3666.
-------
Neighbors/cancer (;30)
Announcer: A public service message from the state of
Maryland.
(outdoor noises, mailbox)
Steve: Hey Bill, I just got my radon test results in the mail.
Looks like we're ok. Have you tested your home yet?
Bill: Nah, with all those new health hazards they keep coming
up with, it's not worth the effort.
Steve: Sorry friend, that's where you're wrong. Did you know
that radon causes lung cancer? And it's been found in
homes in Western Maryland? Listen, even if you're not
worried about yourself, at least do a test for your
kids' sake.
Bill: You're really serious about this, aren't you?
Steve: You bet I am. And now we know our home is safe.
Announcer: To find out how you can test your home, call the
Maryland radon hotline at 1-800-872-3666. That's
1-800-872-3666.
-------
APPENDIX 7:
EPA-MDE PROJECT RELATED NEWSPAPER ARTICLES IN THE
FREDERICK NEWS-POST
-------
Frederick News-Post
Radon
awareness
By KAREN GARDNER /
News-Post Staff
1.8
^Radori'testing is the best'way to.find
oiitjl-if-^a1; iome' is . filled with' the
dangerpusV but .'invisible, gas, and a
state*/'official'-wants homeowners in
Fre'derickr'-County to monitor l,heir
houses.,
::Radori: t^sts take only a few days, and
cost' from- -$10 to $15, said Roland
Fletcher, program administrator for the
Center for Radiological Health. The
center (is a division of the state.
Department of the Environment and is
.sponsoring a radon awareness cam-
paign.
The colorless, odorless gas is a
radioactive byproduct of uranium that
seeps out'.of the ground, and can: be
found anywhere. yRadon creeps into
houses through cracks in foundations,
and is trapped inside by walls, and insu-
lation.
• Radon has been pinpointed as the
second leading cause of lung cancer,
behind smoking, Mr. Fletcher said.
Officials want homes monitored
"When you look atthe incidents ,of non-
smokers and-lung ..cancer, you have to
• consider radon," he said. Radon, was
first discovered as a cause when a. high
rate of lung cancer was found among
uranium' workers. '•''•/
Up to 20,000 lung canc,er deaths a year
may have been caused by radon, Mr.
Fletcher said.
"We want to encourage people to do a
radon testt" he said;;The first step.is an
activated charcoal device that costs less
than $15,. he said. If i more than-four
pic'oCuries per liter are recorded on the
testing device, an alpha'tract detector
. test is recommended.
"That shouldn't cost much more than
$35 or $40," he said. "Then you'll have a
better idea of what your level is."
Testing equipment and results can be
obtained from radon testers. The center
will provide a list of such testers when
requested.
People whose homes have results of
from four to 20 picoCuries per liter need
to take.a few corrective steps, he said.
. For those who have results of more than
20 picoCuries, more serious action is
recommended. . ,
That's where the awareness cam-
paign comes in. A toll-free radon hotline
was established by the center, and by
calling 1-800-872-3666 from 8:30 a.m. to
4:30 p.m. weekdays, advice can be
sought, Mr. Fletcher said.
Levels of radon can soar into the
thousands, he. said, but the highest
recorded in Maryland was about 600
picoCuries. Radon can be found any-
where, he. added.
Corrective measures vary, he said.
"It could be as simple as increasing'
ventilation," he said. "That could be
hard, however, during months like
these."
Other recommendations include
caulking cracks in the foundation flopr
and patching cracks in underground
walls.
"There are simple things homeowners
can do," he said. "If these things don't
work, then they'll probably have to seek
a contractor."
One homeowner did the work himself,
Mr. Fletcher said, spending about $100.
A hired job may cost from $1,200 to
$1,500, Mr. Fletcher said. In one case,
he said a homeowner spent about $3,00p,
but correcting radon leaks usually
shouldn't cost that much, he said.
Contractors that correct radon leaks
are the same ones that build club
basements, and porches, he said. The
state doesn't recommend individual
contractors, but will check the reputa-
tions of contractors for homeowners, he
said.
The center is using 19 homes in Fred-
erick and : nearby counties in an
experiment to find the best and easiest
methods to lower radon levels in homes.
State and federal Environmental Pro-
tection Agency funds are paying the
contractors to perform the experiment.
One of those methods being tested is a
perforated exhaust pipe, beginning
underground and extending outside the
house. An exhaust fan could be acti-
vated .to purge the home of radon
through the pipe.
Radon exists throughout the atmos-
phere, but is dangerous to the lungs
when particles are trapped in a closed
atmosphere, Mr. Fletcher said.
His office is distributing posters and
literature on~ radon. Public service
announcements are being broadcast on
local radio stations, and Feb. 20, the
League of Women Voters is sponsoring
an information session on radon. That
will be at the first-floor meeting room in
Winchester Hall, from 9:30 to 11:30
.a.m. ;
An 'EPA booklet on radon is also
available free from the center.
-------
OAN 3 0 1988
Frederick News-Post
Radon
Frederick mayor
promotes initiative
on radon testing
By KAREN GARDNER
News-Post Staff
What better way to publicize radon
testing in Frederick than to test the
mayor's house?
That's exactly what tb.e_staje
Department of the Environment
decided. Jiny canisters that could slip
into a pocket were distributed to Mayor
Ronald N. Young and the five city
aldermen at City Hall yesterday.
i/Lr. Young ttieti led. an entourage of
state officials to, his house on 14th Street
to uncap the canister.
. In two days, Mr. Young will recap the
canister, placed in his basement, and
the activated charcoal will be sent to a
lab to be tested. If radon, a colorless,
odorless gas linked to lung cancer,, is
present, it will show up on the charcoal
when tested. Results will be ready, in
about two weeks.
Uader_the direction of Roland
Fletcher, chief of the state's center for
radiological health, Mr. Young put the
"uncapped canister on a basement
bookcase, where it won'tbe disturbed by
a resident cat and dog.
"We're testing your lower level," Mr.
Fletcher said. "That's the worst case
scenario."
Mr. Young said the test would help
hinTouTlis well as give a-plug tor the
educational emits ot Mr. Fletcher's
efface. "I'm trying to support .the pro-
gram, but it will be good to find out what
we have here," he said.
The kits cost from $12 to $25. Charcoal
is treated, or activated, to become more
absorbent. The same kind of charcoal is
used in military masks to keep soldiers
from breathing chemical-gases. Radon,
a gas formed from radioactive decay of
(Continued on Page A-4)
-------
Staff photo by Annette Leln
A tiny canister will collect radon in the house of Frederick Mayor Ronald N. Young to determine the level of
the gas in the "home. A high level of radon, produced by decaying uranium, has been shown to cause lung
cancer in non-smokers.
Frederick mayor probes house
for radon; Hopes others will test
(Continued from Page A-l)
uranium, is attracted to the charcoal in
the test kits.
"You can collect a representative
sample in. two days," Mr. Fletcher said.
Radon has a four-day half life. After
four days, half the radon collected
begins to decay. Tests are valid as long
as the kits aren't opened for longer than
seven days.
Radon has been found to be present in
homes, seeping through cracks in the
foundation or porous cinder-block walls.
Because radon rises from the earth, its
highest concentrations are likely to be in
the lowest level.
The radioactive gas is a chief cause of
lung cancer among people who don't
smoke.
What the kits reveal is how much
radon, measured in a unit called a
picoCurie, is present in the home. The
kits give a fairly accurate picture, Mr.
Fletcher said.
If more than 20 picoCuries per liter of
air is measured, a second test is
recommended, one that takes anywhere
from three months to a year. An alpha
tract detector is used for the more
serious test.
If the level is still found to be above 20,
corrective measures that usually
involve sealing cracks are recom-
mended. Readings of under 100 can
usually be reduced for less than $100 if
one is a bit handy, Mr. Fletcher said.
The highest reading found in Mary-
land was about 600, he said. Such levels
usually need the attention of a contrac-
tor to reduce.
Radon is most likely to be present in a
home in the winter, when a house is
closed to prevent heat from escaping.
The insulation that keeps down heating
costs also prevents radon from
escaping, Mr. Fletcher said.
Mr. Fletcher is urging people to test
their homes under a special program set
up jointly by his"office and the federal
Environmental Protection Agency.
Pennsylvania and Virginia ~&re
parttc1pating~on a limited basis. If the
program is successful, it will pypand
into other states.
Radon can be found anywhere
uranium concentrations are located.
Because those concentrations can't be
pinpointed tests are encouraged to
determine if a home is free of the
carcinogenic gas.
-------
03193
Radon
Frederick News-Post
Speaker tells FOP
how to handle radon
By KAREN GARDNER
News-Post Staff
The odds against radon doing human
damage seem huge. But they're not, a
state environmental official told the
Fraternal Order of Police last night.
Radon is a byproduct of uranium
decay. Uranium, found in trace
amounts on all parts of the earth's
surface, decays into radium, and then-
radon. Radon then breaks into particles
which won't do any damage unless they
accumulate.
That's what radon particles do when
they're in closed up areas like homes
and other buildings, said Roland
Fletcher, chief of the state office of
radiological health for the Department
ofthe_ Environment.
"About 25 members of the FOP came to
hear Mr. Fletcher discuss the dangers
of radon accumulation in homes. Most
homes probably have relatively low
levels of radon. But to make sure, the
state is urging homeowners to invest in
a test kit,"one that costs anywhere from
?5 to ?15, and check the radon level.
J "Radon is diffused in the air in
i quantities that normally won't' hurt
j 'ou," Mr. Fletcher said. "But when you
atllow the particles to accumulate, that's
v,yhen the damage can begin."
> Radon causes more lung cancer than
anything but smoking, and is the leading
c^mse among non-smokers.
.VThe byproduct of decaying uranium
ga^s, radon leaks into homes and build-
ings through cracks in the foundation.
In Winter, when houses are often closed
to outside air, radon levels are usually
the .highest.
The . smallest crack is • enough for
radon to get into a house. In order for
radora to be present beneath a house,
trace deposits of uranium must exist,
and the soil must be porous enough to
allow -the gas to seep to the earth's
surface.
Insulation isn't the cause of radon
infiltration. "If your home is well insu-
lated, and it can get in, perhaps it can't
get out," Mr. Fletcher said.
The damage radon does results from
years of accumulation of deposits in the
lungs. "If there's one thing we want to
caution people about, it's that you have
time," he said.
But homes should be tested in case the
radon level needs to be reduced. If the
result is a level that's low but still above
average, the solution may be as simple
as keeping a crawl space ventilated. Or,
it could involve opening cellar windows
year round if the area isn't regularly
used.
For higher levels, perforated pipes
with fans may be installed under the
house to direct the g-as outside, where
it's harmless. For a'nyone building a
house, Mr. Fletcher, suggested install-
ing a couple of extra pipes beneath the
house and aiming .them outside.
After the house is built, a test will
show the level of radon.- If that level
should be reduced, fans can be installed
in the pipes to direct the radon outside.
If the level of radon" in, the home is
-harmless, the pipes can be capped.
In an existing house, "a lot depends on
how good -your' builder"-was," Mr.
Fletcher said.
Two weeks ago, Safeway grocery
stores began marketing radon testing
devices for $4.75. In the chain's stores in
the Washington area and in Maryland,
37,500 have already been purchased.
"Those things are selling like
hotcakes," Mr. Fletcher said.
-------
FEB 2 2 1988
Frederick News-Post
Radon
Frederick County radon levels near average
By PHILIP OLINICK
' News-Post Staff
Radon levels recorded so far in
Frederick County are about average
compared with tests in other parts of the
state, although there have been some
very high levels recorded around the
county, according to Maryland
Department of the Environment data.
Last month 11 out of 112 homes
voluntarily tested in Frederick County
had ratings more than 25 times greater
than federally recommended levels for
radon gas.
The highest level recorded is still in
Carroll County, where one house had
radon levels about 157 times greater
than the federal maximum.
The Department of the Environment
has "good data" only in four counties:
Frederick, Montgomery, Howard and
Carroll, said Ronald Fletcher, program
administrator of the department's
radiological health division.
A governor's task force will report to
the state legislature about radon on July
1. The Department of the Environment
hopes to have collected sufficient data
on the rest of the state before the task
force presents its report.
About 30 people attended a radon
seminar Saturday in Winchester Hall
In addition to Mr. Fletcher, an.expert
panel included an Environmental Pro-
tection Agency representative, a Carroll
County builder, an American Medical
Association representative and a
Maryland Association of Realtors rep-
resentative who is on the governor's
radon task force. The seminar was
organized by the local League of Women
Voters chapter.
Martin Hill, the Carroll County
builder, told the audience he thinks
builders should "take the basic
precautions in construction that are not
costly."
In the homes he builds he makes it
easier for homeowners to install retrofit
devices which can help purge radon,
should they happen to record high
levels. The different construction tech-
niques cost about $300 per home, he
said.
; Without the investment, Mr. Hill fears
that legally he could be found negligent.
He said that none of the hundreds of
homes he has built, which have been
tested for radon, have had high levels.
Many contracto£S_,are^
-------
WR09 1988
Frederick News-Post
Radon
Frederick city officials
check homes for radon
By KAREN GARDNER
News-Post Staff
Radon exists within homes in
Frederick, if a testing of the homes of
six city officals is any indication.
Four of six homes tested for radon,
owned by the city's mayor and five
aldermen, had levels of radon high
enough that corrective measures may
need to be taken.
"None of them had such high levels
that there's an immediate threat to
their health," said Nancy Zahedi, an
official with the Environmental Pro-
tection Agency. The EPA is joining
with the state to publicize radon
testing in Maryland.
The tests were conducted by the
state Center for Radiological Health,
as a publicity effort to get other
homeowners to screen their homes for-
radon.
Levels from 4 picoCuries of radon
per liter of air to 20 picoCuries are
considered high enough that minor
corrections should be made to the
house's structure. That usually
involves sealing cracks in the foun-
dation or opening a window hi a crawl
space.
Levels from 2 to 15 picoCuries were
found among the homes owned by the
mayor and aldermen. "That
reinforces that the City of Frederick
is an area where you should test your
home," Ms. Zahedi said.
"I have radon," said Alderman
.ene Phillips, who lives at 305 Col-
" Place. "It's much like termites I
Mrs. Phillips' home
j a level of 6.5 picoCuries,
above the safe level of 4'
picoCuries.
-"Their suggestion was that we
should test for a longer period," she
said. "We're going to try to get a year
test, and see how the house goes
through the year. Then we'll see what
steps we need to take from there."
Aldermen James M. Murphy's
home, at 1089 Rocky Springs Road,
registered a level of 14.5 picoCuries.
That's high enough that a long-term
test is being, recommended. Levels
from 20 to 100 picoCuries are con-
sidered more serious, with more
costly corrective measures possible.
Levels over 100 picoCuries are con-
sidered very serious. The highest
level found in a Maryland residence,
according to the EPA, is around 600
picoCuries.
"Mine was a little high," Aldermen
William 0. Lee, of 98 McMurray
Place, said. His home registered 15
picoCuries. One other alderman
registered a level above 4 picoCuries.
Mayor Ronald N. Young, who
tested the house he owns on 14th
Street, found only a level of 2
picoCuries, so no further testing will
be needed on that house;
"It's something everyone is getting
concerned about," Mrs. Phillips said.
"I want to go ahead with the next
step; Ihave two children. I'm happy
that we did it. If I hadn't done it for
this program, I don't know if I would
have done it."
Radon test kits retail for up to $25.
Made of activated charcoal, the kits
absorb radon for two or three days
before the sample is sent to a lab to4>e
tested. Test results take about two
weeks.
-------
APPENDIX 8:
NEWSPAPER PUBLIC SERVICE ADVERTYISEMENTS IN THE
HAGERSTOWN HERALD-MAIL
-------
The Herald-Mail, March 1, 1988
S YOUR HOME SAFE
FROM RADON?
D Your home may be hazardous to your health.
D Radon is a radioactive gas that can cause
lung cancer.
H A radon test is easy and can cost less than $25.
Test your home now and be sure.
Call the State of Maryland^ Radon Hotlina
1-800-872-3666
-------
The Herald-Mail, March 9, 1988
20646
20707
20711
20714
20744
20754
20759
20760
20769
20770
20814 20855
20815
20816
20817
20832
20833
20837
20838
20841
20842
20850
20856
20857
20861
20868
2087]
20872
208^4
20877
20S7K
20879
UNSAFE RAI
20772 20851 20895
20904
20906
20910
20979
21029
21030
21035
21043
21044
21045
21046
tit
11104 21727
21117
21131
21133
21136
21146
21152
21153
21157
21204
21285
21740
21754
21755
21764
21769
21770
21771
21773
21776
21783
N LEVELS
21048 21401 21784
HAVE ALREADY BEEN 21791
20777 20852 20901 21084 21701 21793
FOUND IN HOMES WITH 21794
20781 20853 20902 21093 21716 21797
THESE MARYLAND 21/23 21854
20784 20854 20903 21102
ZIP CODES
Test your home now and be sura
Call the State of Maryland^ Radon Hotline.
1-800-872-3666
-------
tainment
The Morning Herald
Thursday, March 17,1988
B7
YOU CARE ABOUT
YOUR HEALTH
You Watch
What You Eat
You Exercise
You Stopped
Smoking
So why haven't you tested
your home for radon?
It's easy D It's inexpensive
Call the State of Maryland^ Radon Hotline.
1-800-872-3666
-------
MAR 2 5 1988
Radon
Hagerstown Me
Is YOUR CHILD SAFE
FROM RADON?
You wouldn't let your child smoke a pack a day.
Yet radon gas in your home can be just as dangerous.
TEST YOUR HOME NOW.
Call the State of Maryland's Radon Hotline
1-800-872-3666
-------
APPENDIX 9;
SITES OF RADON POSTER AND PAMPHLET DISTRIBUTION
Downtown Offices and Stores:
Library
Post Office
Frederick county office building, including health clinic
Charities building
Chamber of Commerce
American Heart Association
Carmack J's Supermarket on Market Street
YMCA
Adult Recreation Building on North Bentz Street
Convenience Store on North Bentz Street
Offices and Stores along Patrick Street/Highway 40:
Group of realty offices along Patrick Street
Mart in's Supermarket
Hillcrest Deli
Giant Supermarket in Westridge Square
84 Lumber in Frederick Shoppers Square
Dry Cleaners in Frederick Shoppers Square
Hechingers
Carmack J's Supermarket
Offices and Stores along Highway 15 in Frederick Shopping Center
People's drugstore
Hardware store
Supermarket
Hair Salon
Doctor's office. Amber Ridge Medical Center (they never indicated
whether they actually used the materials)
-------
APPENDIX in- COMMUNITY GROUP PRESENTATIONS IN FREDERICK
Date Organization
1/6/88 Clover Hill Women's Association
1/18/88 SERTOMA Club
1/21/88 Lions Club
2/2/88 Fraternal Order of Police
2/10/88 Active Telephone Pioneers
2/20/88 League of Women Voters Panel Discussion
2/24/88 Retired Members of Telephone Pioneers
3/15/88 American Lung Association
3/17/88 Worthington Manors Community Association
4/25/88 National Cancer Institute
-------
APPENDIX 11:
RADON SLIDE SHOW SCRIPT
-------
RADON SLIDE SHOW SCRIPT
Graphic - Title
Slide of Sherlock Holmes
looking through magnifying
glass for radon
Graphic - cigarette pack;
radon seeping into house
Graphic - Uranium to
Radium to Radon to home
Title: Radon: What it is and
what you can do about it.
Radon is a radioactive gas that
is as natural as air and water,
but cannot be detected by our
senses. You can't see, smell
or taste radon.
This colorless, odorless gas is
now considered one of the
nation's most important
environmental threats—one that
places people at risk in their
own homes.
Scientists believe that
exposure to elevated levels of
radon in the home may cause up
to 20,000 of the nation's lung
cancer deaths each year, making
radon the leading cause of
cancer in non-smokers. This
has led the American Medical
Association to label radon a
significant health risk.
Where does radon come from and
how has it emerged as one of
the most significant public
health issues of today? This
question should be of interest
to anyone concerned with the
safety of their home.
Radon gas is formed by the
natural decay of radium, which
results from the decay of
uranium. Both radium and
uranium are very common
elements present in soils and
rock.
Radon itself is not dangerous.
But as it decays, the gas
produces radiation in the form
of microscopic particles that
can cling to ordinary household
dust or other airborne
particles.
-------
5. Picture of outdoors (open
air)
Picture of inside of a
house
Diagram of lungs and how
radon affects it
Word slide - What Factors
Influence Your Risks from
Radon
Outdoors, radon is diluted
quickly and poses little
threat.
Indoors, radon decay products
can build up over time and
become a health hazard.
When we breathe, the radon
decay products can become
trapped in our lungs. As these
decay products break down
further, they release small
bursts of energy which can
damage lung tissue and lead to
lung cancer.
Not everyone exposed to radon
develops lung cancer. But as
the level of radon and length
of exposure increases, so does
the risk.
9. Photograph of a miner
10. Photograph of a typical
housewife.
Your health risk from radon
depends on the average
concentration of radon in your
home, the number of years you
have lived there and the amount
of time you spend at home each
day and whether or not you
smoke.
For years, scientists have
known that many uranium miners
have contracted lung cancer
from being exposed to high
radon levels. While conditions
in people's homes are different
from those in mines, some homes
have radon levels as high or
even higher than in underground
mines.
Also, preliminary studies in
Sweden suggest that women
living in homes with high radon
have more than 2 times the lung
cancer of women living in homes
with low radon. This has
resulted in a growing awareness
of radon in the home as an
environmental health risk.
-------
11. Word Slide - Why Concern
Now?
12. Photograph of Pennsylvania
newspaper headlines from
1984
13. Map of the Reading Prong
14. Slide of Watras house from
Newspaper article
Why is radon just now gaining
so much attention? Though
radon has always been present
in the air at low levels, only
recently have we become aware
that houses may have high
indoor radon levels caused by
natural deposits of uranium in
the soil.
This awareness emerged in
December 1984, when a Boyertown
Pennsylvania resident set off
the walk-through radiation
detector at the nuclear plant
where he worked. What made the
incident unusual was that he
did not pick up the radiation
during a day's work; he
brought it with him from his
home.
The house was built over a
geological formation known as
the Reading Prong, an area rich
in uranium-bearing minerals
which extends through
Pennsylvania, New Jersey and
New York.
Radon levels in this house were
recorded as high as 3,000
picocuries per liter, among the
highest levels ever measured.
However, even these extremely
high levels were brought down
to acceptable levels.
-------
15. Map of 10 States survey
16. Diagram - 1 house in 5 in
red
17. Word Slide - How Do You
Know if You Have a Radon
Problem?—TEST
18. Graphic Slide - Cross
Section of Wall Showing
Radon Entry Points
But since 1984, high radon
levels have been found
throughout the U.S.
A recent survey of 10 states
conducted by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency
suggests that
on average 1 out of 5 houses in
those states have radon levels
above the EPA action levels.
This survey showed that
geological maps are a good,
though not absolute, indicator
of where elevated radon levels
can be found.
More importantly, it showed
that the only way to know what
radon levels in your home are
is to test.
How does radon enter the home?
Because radon is a gas, it can
find many ways into a house.
It's also possible for one home
to have elevated levels while
a neighboring home does not.
The most common pathways
include openings around water
and gas pipes, sump pumps and
drains...
As well as cracks in
foundations and the hollow
interiors of block walls.
-------
J-9. Graphic - Air Pressure
20. Graphic slide
supply
water
21. Picture of homeowner
testing for radon
22. Picture of testing devices
23. Photo - Reading testing
instructions
24. Word Slide:
Testing is Easy &
Inexpensive
A major factor that can
contribute to the problem is
negative air pressure created
inside a home, which can act
like a vacuum that draws in
radon. This occurs when air
pressure in the house drops
below the pressure in the
ground, causing a suction
effect that pulls in radon from
the ground.
Radon can sometimes enter the
home through the water supply
if it comes from a private
well. So far, however, few
significant radon levels have
been found in wells outside of
the Northeastern United States.
Only a test for radon can tell
you if you have elevated levels
in your home. The options
range from do-it-yourself
testing devices to contracting
with a commercial indoor
testing service.
How can we measure a gas that
can't be seen, smelled or
tasted? There are several ways
to measure radon levels in your
home. The two most commonly
used tests are the charcoal
detector and alpha track
detector.
Both types of detectors can be
ordered by mail and come with
easy to follow instructions.
These testing devices are
placed in the home for 2-7 days
for the charcoal detector and
from 3 months to a year for the
alpha track before being sent
to the laboratory for analysis.
The charcoal detector costs
from $12-$25 and the alpha
track from $25-$50.
-------
25. Word Slide - Screening
Test vs. Follow-Up Test
26. Photograph - House with
windows closed
27. House with windows open
28. Word slide - When and How
to Test
A short term test, such as the
charcoal detector, is a
screening test. If it shows an
elevated radon reading, then a
follow-up test, often with an
alpha track, is strongly
recommended before any action
is taken.
A third testing method is the
radon grab sample. This is a
5 minute test, but gives only
a snapshot of the level of
radon in your home at a given
time. Because radon levels
vary by time of day and by
season, a grab sample is not
recommended as the only radon
test in your home.
Seasonal variations can affect
radon levels. Radon levels
will be higher in the winter,
during the heating season, when
a house is sealed up,
than in the spring when windows
are open and ventilation is
good.
This makes it important to
measure the annual average
radon level with a long-term
test if a screening test shows
high radon.
To do a screening test, place
a testing device on the lowest
level of the home during the
sample period, under closed
house conditions.
Concentrations are generally
higher in basements than on
upper floors. A basement test
during the winter, when windows
are closed, may give you the
picture and is
as a screening
you do the test
fo1 low the
to make the
worst case
recommended
test. If
yourself,
instructions
results more accurate.
-------
29.
Slide - Measuring Radon:
pCi/i vs. WL
30.
Word Slide - What Level of
Radon is Safe?
31.
Word Slide:
Influencing
Risk
Other Factors
Lung Cancer
Radon measurements are reported
in two ways: in terms of
picocuries per liter of air for
radon (pCi/1) or as working
levels for radon decay products
(WL). As a general guide, 4
picocuries per liter is
equivalent to 0.02 Working
Levels. Most test companies
will report your results in
picocuries per liter.
What level of radon is safe?
In general, no level of
radiation is considered
absolutely safe. As a
guideline, the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) has established 4
picocuries per liter as the
recommended action level. This
guideline takes into account
both health risks and current
technology. In most homes,
levels can be reduced reliably
to 4 picocuries per liter, and
often below this.
Acceptable levels of radon
exposure are hard to set
because of other factors. For
example, recent scientific
studies indicate that smokers
exposed to elevated levels of
indoor radon have a much
greater risk of developing lung
cancer. Lifestyle and heredity
may also affect a person's risk
of getting lung cancer.
-------
32. Word slide - EPA
guidelines <4 pCi/1
33. Word slide continued
34. Word slide - guide: 4-20
pci/i
35. Word slide continued
The higher the radon level in
a home, the more urgent it is
that you take action to control
it in order to avoid
unnecessary health risks.
The Environmental Protection
Agency provides this general
guide:
o radon levels less than 4
picocuries per liter,
present some risk of lung
cancer. Reductions below
4 picocuries per liter may
be difficult.
o if radon levels exceed 4
picocuries per liter on a
screening test, follow-up
testing and remediation
should be done as follows:
- between 4 and 20
picocuries per liter
do a one year follow-
up test to determine
annual average radon
exposure before
taking appropriate
action.
36
Word slide continued
between 20 and 200
picocuries per liter
a follow-up test of
no more than 3 months
is recommended before
corrective or
remedial action.
over 200 picocuries
per liter you should
not wait more than a
few weeks to take
corrective action.
-------
37. Graphic - Comparative risk
38. Photograph of someone
standing next to mailbox
reading test results
39. Word Slide - Approaches to
Mitigation
40. Photograph of cracks being
sealed
Exposure to 4 picocuries per
liter is roughly equal to the
cancer risk associated with
smoking half a pack of
cigarettes a day. At 10
picocuries per liter, the risk
is about equal to smoking one
pack of cigarettes a day.
If you have tested and had a
follow-up test which confirms
high annual radon levels, you
should take action to reduce
these levels. The good news is
that radon problems can be
fixed successfully and usually
cost no more than many other
home repairs.
There are three basic
approaches to reducing radon
levels: prevent its entry by
sealing cracks, holes, and
other openings; remove the
source by venting the gas from
under your foundation before it
enters your house; and remove
it from your house by increased
ventilation. Let's look at
some of the ways we can reduce
radon levels.
Sealing cracks and openings
found in the foundation and/or
basement floor is one way to
prevent radon entry-
In cases of low levels of radon
this approach may be enough.
In the case of high levels,
this is one of the first steps
to take.
-------
41. Graphic Slide -
Ventilation
Sub Slat) Sub slab ventilation has proven
very successful in reducing
radon levels in homes. This
method removes radon from
beneath the foundation before
it enters the house. Pipes are
inserted into holes drilled
through the slab upon which the
house is built. Fans at the
end of the pipe system draw
radon away from the house.
42. Graphic slide - Forced
Ventilation Diagram
43. Graphic Slide - Chart of
Estimated Remediation
Costs
Forced ventilation uses fans to
blow fresh air into the
basement and/or lower levels of
the house creating positive air
pressure.
Done properly, this assures the
frequent exchange of fresh
outside air for radon
contaminated air. In many
parts of the country this would
be a temporary solution to
bring radon levels down before
a more permanent solution can
be used. If done incorrectly,
exhausting air from the
basement could increase the
problem.
The cost of these mitigation
techniques ranges on average
from $200 to $2000. The best
system for you depends on how
high your radon levels are,
what the source of the problem
is, and whether or not you have
the skills and tools to install
the system yourself.
For example, if your radon
level is slightly higher than
the action guidelines, you may
only need to seal cracks and
openings to the soil and/or
increase ventilation. For
higher readings, you may need
to hire a contractor who can
install wall or sub-slab
ventilation.
-------
44. f Word Sli.de - What Should
I Do?
45. Word slide: test now and
be sure
46. Photograph of EPA radon
booklets.
Now that you know about radon,
what can you do as a homeowner?
You should start by testing
your home for radon. If your
radon level is below 4
picocuries per liter, EPA
suggests that you try to reduce
levels as low as possible.
Based on current research,
reducing levels below 4
picocuries per liter can be
difficult.
If it is over 4 picocuries per
liter, do the appropriate
follow-up testing before
deciding how to fix the
problem.
Your state or local health or
environmental department offers
information and guidance.
They can provide you with
pamphlets on radon and lists of
reputable testing firms and
contractors.
These materials will help you
make well informed decisions
concerning radon testing or
mitigation, and are available
from the state office.
47. Word Slide
Radon
Test for
In summary: Test for radon.
Any house can have high levels.
Radon is a serious health risk
and no home is immune to it.
Most households will not have
a radon problem, but you will
get valuable peace of mind by
knowing whether your home is
safe.
-------
48. Word Slide - Mitigate if Mitigate if necessary to reduce
Radon Levels Greater than your radon levels. If follow-
4 pCi/1 up tests indicate levels
greater than 4 picocuries per
liter you should definitely
consult your state agency for
advice. If follow-up tests
indicate levels below 4
picocuries per liter and you
are concerned, call your state
agency.
49. Photograph - Family scene Radon can affect your health.
inside house (parents. But, once identified, it's a
kids, dog) problem you can control. Why
not test now and be sure.
-------
APPENDIX 12:
WJLA "RADON WATCH" LEAFLET
-------
Together We Can Work to
Solve the Problem
Throughout WJLA's Radon Watch cam-
paign, Baskin will report on the various
aspects of the radon problem on News
7. She'll show you what steps to take to
fix a radon problem in your home and
she'll discuss what government,
schools and private industries, like
builders and realtors, are doing about
radon. In February, Baskin will track the
progress of WJLA's radon testing effort,
including how many homes were
tested, what kinds of levels were found
and what homeowners are doing to
radon-proof their homes.
On March 12, WJLA will wrap up the
campaign with a prime-time, public
affairs special offering the final results
of our testing and its impact on the
community.
At WJLA, we know that radon is a
health problem that affects thousands
of families in our area. That's why we're
undertaking this campaign. We urge
you to stay informed and participate
during our five week testing effort.
Together we can help protect your
family from radon.
f
AMERICAN
LUNG
ASSOCIATIONS
of the Nat. Cap. Area
The Christmas Seal People"
AMERICAN
'CANCER
SOCIETY
WJLA Washington
ON yow SIDE
WJLA Washington
-------
Do You Have A Radon
Problem in Your Home?
Scientists estimate that 5,000 to 25,000
people die each year of lung cancer
attributed to radon. According to the
Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), one in every eight American .
homes may be contaminated with
radon—an invisible, odorless, radioac-
tive gas that rises up from the soil.
High levels of radon have been found in
the Washington Metro area, and if your
house happens to be built on soil that
contains radium, you may be living
with a serious health hazard. The only
way to know if you have high radon
levels in your home is to test the air.
Once detected, radon levels can be
brought down.
WJLA-TV Thinks You
Should Find Out
That's why WJLA-TV, in cooperation with
area SAFEWAY stores, is making radon de-
tectors available at cost. It's part of our
two-month Radon Watch campaign to
raise awareness of the radon problem in
our area. Our public awareness effort will
contain a variety of elements including
on-going news reports; a prime-time pub-
lic affairs special; community outreach
activities and an intensive on-air public
service campaign conducted in conjunc-
tion with the American Cancer Society
and the American Lung Associations of
the National Capital Area.
Beginning January 18 through February 19
you will be able to pick up an Air-Chek
radon test kit at area SAFEWAY stores at
cost for only $4.75. Normally it would cost
you $10 to $50 to test your home. All you
do is hang the test pouch in your house
for a week and mail it to the designated
address for analysis. No postage neces-
sary. Within two weeks, you'll have your
results and if there's a problem, you'll get
advice on how to take care of it.
Common
Radon
Entry
Points
water supply
When you breathe, radon decay prod-
ucts can become trapped in your lungs.
Why should you test your home now? If it
turns out you and your family are breath-
ing significant amounts of this harmful
gas, you'll want to take action as soon as
possible. And it's relatively easy and inex-
pensive to take care of the problem.
We Continue to Keep You
Informed
WJLA-TV's consumer editor Roberta
Baskin first told you about radon in the
Washington area two years ago. In a
first of its kind, five month study, Bas-
kin revealed a significant radon prob-
lem here. Nearly half of the homes
tested in the exclusive News 7 study
were contaminated at levels above the
EPA's suggested action level. In fact,
some levels were so high, had the
homes been uranium mines, they would
have been shut down for being occupa-
tional hazards. In follow-up reports
since, Baskin has found homes with
radon levels similar to a cancer risk of
smoking four packs of cigarettes a day.
The good news is that once homeown-
ers learned of the problem, they did
something about it and brought the
radon levels down.
Hang radon test pouch in lowest livable
area of your home.
drain
Source: EPA
-------
APPENDIX 13
Among Respondents in Hagerstown Who Had Tested,
How Many Knowledge Questions Did They Answer Correctly?
Follow-UP Survey
3.2%
12.9%
Number of
Knowledge Questions
Among Respondents in Hagerstown Who Hadn't Tested,
How Many Knowledge Questions Did They Answer Correctly?
Follow-Up Survey
Number of
Knowledge Questions
-------
Among Respondents in Randallstown Who Had Tested,
How Many Knowledge Questions Did They Answer Correctly?
Follow-Up Survey
7.4%
Number of
Knowledge Questions
Among Respondents in Randallstown Who Hadn't Tested,
How Many Knowledge Questions Did They Answer Correctly?
Follow-UD Survey
Number of
Knowledge Questions
I 0-1
D 2-3
1 4-5
3 6-7
-------
Knowledge Models Followup Surveys
(Number Correct on Knowledge Questions (0-7))
Independent followup survey
Independent
Variables
INTERCEPT
EDUCATION
AGE
ASKDOC
FIXiT
WAIT FOR INFO
EXERCISE
SEX
RACE
RESIDENCE TYPE
INCOME
YEARS AT ADDRESS
TOLL FREE NUMBER
UTILITY BILL INSERT
POSTER
TALK ABOUT RADON
TV
FREDERICK
HAGERSTOWN
ROBERTA BASKIN/WJLA
N
AdjR2
F
Model 1
-0.9870
0.1762
-0.0050
-0.1143
-0.0469
0.2021
-0.2563
0.6449
0.5524
0.0855
9.57E-6
0.0066
0.6517
0.2334
0.1823
1.2413
0.7780
0.8521
0.4501
-
1,172
0.3546
36.775
(-2.336)
(7.464)
(-1.117)
(-0.949)
(-0.428)
(1.834)
(-2.166)
(6.035)
(3.387)
(0.600)
(2.858)
(1.168)
(2.150)
(1.437)
(0.708)
(10.571)
(7.198)
(6.001)
(3.069)
Model 2
-0.9460
0.1737
-0.0048
-0.1145
-0.0615
0.2131
-0.2513
0.6570
0.5608
0.0793
9.53E-6
0.0065
0.6573
0.2205
0.1731
1.2368
0.7159
0.8253
0.4214
0.3336
1,172 •
0.3563
35.143
(-2.239)
(7.357)
(-1.084)
(-0.952)
(-0.561)
(1.934)
(-2.126)
(6.147)
(3.442)
(0.557)
(2.851)
(1.139)
(2.171)
(1.359)
(0.673)
(10.546)
(6.347)
(5.795)
(2.863)
(2.009)
Dependent followup survey
Model 1
0.1424
0.1344
-0.0087
-0.1999
0.0136
0.2195
-0.0209
0.4061
0.5899
0.3119
1 .26E-5
0.0048
0.8013
0.2783
0.4546
1.039
0.4929
0.7589
0.4589
-
1,031
0.3016
25.741
(0.334)
(5.681)
(-1.788)
(-1.631)
(0.124)
(1.961)
(-0.175)
(3.762)
(3.795)
(2.168)
(3.806)
(0.799)
(2.727)
(2.062)
(1.925)
(8.937)
(4.462)
(5.190)
(3.121)
Model 2
0.1601
0.1333
-0.0086
-0.2024
0.0101
0.2233
-0.0184
0.4043
0.5913
0.3113
1.27E-5
0.0044
0.8064
0.2692
0.4583
1.033
0.4674
0.7451
0.4474
0.1608
1,031
0.3015
24.420
(0.375)
(5.629)
(-1.761)
(-1.651)
(0.092)
(1.993)
(-0.154)
(3.745)
(3.804) >
(2.164) «
(3.837) g.
(0.743) S*
(2.743) ^
(1.989) *"
(1.940)
(8.861)
(4.089)
(5.065)
(3.030)
(0.870)
Numbers in parentheses are the t ratio.
-------
Appendix 15: Categorization of Respondent Responses
Reasons for Not Testing
Uninformed:
Antitesters:
Fatalists:
problem.
Not in Area:
Not in Home:
Procrastinators:
a. Never thought about it.
b. Didn't know it was possible.
d. Didn't know how to test.
e. Thought testing was too expensive.
f. Don't think tests are reliable.
I. Concerned about confidentiality.
g. Not interested.
i. Would rather not know if there is a
j. Nothing can be done about radon anyway.
k. Fixing a problem is too expensive.
h. Didn't know it was a problem in this area.
c. Don't think I have a problem in my home.
m. Just haven't gotten around to it.
-------
Bibliography: Other EPA-MDE Project Reports
Communicating Radon Risk Effectively: Radon Testing in Maryland.
Hagerstown Focus Group Summary. Research Triangle Institute,
November 1987.
Communicating Radon Risk Effectively: Radon Testing in Maryland.
Overview and Summary of Survey Results. Final Report.
Research Triangle Institute, October 1988.
Communicating Radon Risk Effectively: Radon Testing in Maryland.
Status Report. Research Triangle Institute, September 23, 1987.
Communicating Radon Risk Effectively: Radon Testing in Maryland.
Survey Plan. Research Triangle Institute, November 1987.
Maryland Radon Information and Attitudinal Baseline Survey:
Preliminary Findings. Research Triangle Institute, February
1988.
Maryland Radon Risk Study: Focus Group Findings. Research Triangle
Institute, September 22, 1987.
Public Orientations Toward Radon Testing: Exploratory Qualitative
Research. National Analysts, September 1987.
Radon Risk Communication Project Interim Report. Program
Evaluation Division, Environmental Protection Agency, October
27, 1987.
------- |