Paschal Nwako Ph.D., MPH, REHS, DAAS
Camden County Health Officer & Public Health Coordinator
*Corresponding Author: Paschal Nwako Ph.D., Camden County Health Officer & Public Health Coordinator
Accepted date: 24 March 2021 Read Full Article: https://joom.ag/VAKI/p97
Abstract
This study evaluated whether there are differences in personal practices about radon gas exposure among public health nurses, health educators, health officers, and registered environmental health specialists. Three hundred and eighty-six employees that worked in a public health department participated in the survey. A significant interaction was found (x2 (12) = 84.75, p<.01). This suggests that there are significant differences in personal practices about radon gas exposure among public health workers. Most public health workers (83.7 %) have not completed a radon test in their homes. 87.8 % of public health workers have not purchased a radon test kit, and 65 % of public health workers do not know how to test for radon. This result shows that public health workers are not testing their homes for radon gas exposure. Efforts should be made to change the personal practices of radon gas exposure among public health workers for their role as change agents to the public to be effective.
Introduction
Radon gas, a known carcinogen, typically gets into houses from the ground through pores in cinder blocks walls, cracks in foundations, and other openings.[1] The concentrations of radon gas in houses is depended on the rate of exchange of air inside the house and the strength of the radon source on the ground.[1] Due to the increase in energyefficiency, his exchange has been reduced, leading to a higher concentration of radon gas in houses. Building airtight homes which come
with insulation favor radon build-up in homes.[2] Reports show that low
and medium-dose exposure to radon gas caused radon- induced lung
cancers. [1,3] Radon levels on the first floor of homes are about half
of the level in the basement. [4] The Harvard Center for Risk Analysis
ranked radon gas inhalation as the most important potentially fatal
hazard in the home. In that study, radon gas estimated annual
cause-specific mortality rate is 5.8 per 100,000 people. [5] Radon
can also enter homes from other routes. Radon gas can entera
house through groundwater and gain access through living spaces
and disintegrates into its decay products. The exposure risk of radon
gas inhalation from water is usually more significant than radon gas
exposure through ingestion of water.[6] When radon gas is inhaled
from highly analyzing particles due to the breakdown of Polonium-
218 (Po-218) and Polonium -214 (Po-214), it can interact with the biological tissue in the lungs and can damage the DNA, which is a significant step in the carcinogenesis process.[6] One in fifteen homes has been estimated to have elevated radon levels in the United States. [1] It is estimated that radon gas is responsible for about 21,000 deaths each year, leading to 22 % of lung cancer in the United States.[1] There is no threshold value for radon gas exposure; hence DNA damage may occur at any level of exposure. [7] Public health workers are, for the most part, individuals whose activity is to ensure and enhance the health of their communities and take part in activities with the essential aim of upgrading well-being in their communities.[7] Public health workers have an exceptional centrality because, as government workers, they are at the forefront for communicating public health education even with changing community desires and dangers to the general well-being of the public. [8] Viable correspondence adapted towards an explicit gathering has been observed to be a piece of the hazard investigation process and seen as fundamental for controlling data and conviction identified with real and perceived risks, for example, radon gas exposure. [9,11] Viable data spread methodologies are fundamental for evoking wanted results, regardless of expanded mindfulness or attitudinal or social change. [12] Giving helpful, applicable, and exact data in a distinct and justifiable dialect and arrangement for a specific gathering of people or hazard aggregate is a primary objective of hazard correspondence. This data may incorporate the idea of the hazard and potential advantages, vulnerabilities, basis for activity, and procedures for overseeing hazard. [13] Previous studies have been performed on radon gas exposure perception regarding recognizing relates of hazard recognition, with socioeconomics, for example, gender, age, pay, education, race, property possession and years at the property. [10,14-16] Radon gas knowledge has corresponded with different socioeconomics. [14] A positive critical relationship exists between mindfulness and worries about radon.[17] Furthermore, when information is high, dimensions of concerns remain moderately low. [17] This is critical in that public health workers are relied upon to be change agents are expected to have knowledge of radon gas exposure. Understanding how that knowledge translates into testing their home for radon gas is essential in linking knowledge into personal practice. The most reliable indicators of radon testing expectations found in a study were perceived severity, social impact, and current smoking. [10] Members with higher perceived severity were about eighty times bound to plan to test for radon gas in their homes. This study's purpose is to explore potential differences in various public health worker's personal practices about radon gas exposure.
Understand public health workers personal practices about radon gas exposure
Continued on page 44 ...
37