4.3 Article

Lung cancer risk from radon in Ontario, Canada: how many lung cancers can we prevent?

Journal

CANCER CAUSES & CONTROL
Volume 24, Issue 11, Pages 2013-2020

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10552-013-0278-x

Keywords

Radon; Lung cancer; Ontario; Canada; Burden of illness

Funding

  1. Public Health Ontario

Ask authors/readers for more resources

To calculate the burden of lung cancer illness due to radon for all thirty-six health units in Ontario and determine the number of radon-attributable lung cancer deaths that could be prevented. We calculated the population attributable risk percent, excess life-time risk ratio, life-years lost, the number of lung cancer deaths due to radon, and the number of deaths that could be prevented if all homes above various cut-points were effectively reduced to background levels. It is estimated that 13.6 % (95 % CI 11.0, 16.7) of lung cancer deaths in Ontario are attributable to radon, corresponding to 847 (95 % CI 686, 1,039) lung cancer deaths each year, approximately 84 % of these in ever-smokers. If all homes above 200 Bq/m(3), the current Canadian guideline, were remediated to background levels, it is estimated that 91 lung cancer deaths could be prevented each year, 233 if remediation was performed at 100 Bq/m(3). There was important variation across health units. Radon is an important contributor to lung cancer deaths in Ontario. A large portion of radon-attributable lung cancer deaths are from exposures below the current Canadian guideline, suggesting interventions that install effective radon-preventive measures into buildings at build may be a good alternative population prevention strategy to testing and remediation. For some health units, testing and remediation may also prevent a portion of radon-related lung cancer deaths. Regional attributable risk estimates can help with local public health resource allocation and decision making.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available