These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Cost-benefit analyses of radon mitigation projects.
    Author: Petersen ML, Larsen T.
    Journal: J Environ Manage; 2006 Oct; 81(1):19-26. PubMed ID: 16616412.
    Abstract:
    Radon is a radioactive gas that enters buildings and is known to cause lung cancer. Danish building regulation recommends simple remedial measures for radon levels between 200 and 400 Bqm(-3), and more effective methods for levels above 400 Bqm(-3). The Danish National Board of Health found that radon levels in 4.6% of the dwellings were above the reference level, and that the distribution of radon levels in Danish one-family houses is lognormal with a geometric mean of 57.7 Bqm(-3) and a geometric standard deviation of 2.28. The purpose of the paper is to present a cost-benefit analysis of a possible future governmental intervention against radon in existing Danish one-family houses. In other words, it seeks to answer the question: is it socio-economically worthwhile to avert lung cancer deaths by reducing radon levels in the most exposed dwellings? The results indicate that an intervention based on the anti-radon measures recommended by the Danish building regulation would, if implemented, avert less than 30 deaths each year. By comparison, a total of 300 people die from radon exposure annually in Denmark. The total costs exceed the valuated health benefits by euro 62 million (6% discount rate). It is concluded that it is not socio-economically favourable to reduce radon levels in existing Danish one-family houses. These results are based on a discount rate of 6%, a value of preventing a statistical fatality of euro 1.4 million, and a relatively high cost of remediation in Denmark compared to other countries. Based on the sensitivity analysis, the conclusion will be different if a discount rate of 4.3% or less is used, or if the value of preventing a statistical fatality is euro 2.54 million or higher, or if the cost of remediation is reduced.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]