ABSTRACT
Regulation of indoor Rn is explored in the context of cost-effectiveness of regulatory action. Evaluation of cost (i.e., mitigation expenses) and benefits (i.e., savings associated with medical expenses and lost productivity related to lung cancer) at various action levels indicate that regulatory programs would be economically inefficient and unreasonable if standards were established at or below the current EPA action guide (150 Bq m-3 or less). For the approximately 95% of U.S. homes with Rn levels near or below 150 Bq m-3, government programs should continue to focus on public information and consumer protection. For the small number of homes with high Rn levels, government programs should focus on identifying high risk homes and encouraging homeowners to reduce Rn levels. Because of the potential for substantial risk reduction, such efforts would be cost-effective in these homes.
