Special issue - European Radon Week 2020

Why European Radon Week? Why combine three different workshops into a single unique event? Around Europe, several radon events have been organised separately. The European Radon Association (ERA) organised an annual workshop, and the Joint Research Centre of the European Commission (JRC) used to host a radon event every 2 years. Occasionally, there are standalone events like the workshop summarising the results of the MetroRADON project

Literature review of Indoor radon surveys in Europe

Natural radioactivity is the main source of population exposure to ionising radiation. Radon and its progenies contribute with more than 50% to annual effective dose received from all sources of ionising radiation (UNSCEAR, 2000) and has been identified as a second leading cause of lung cancer after smoking (WHO, 2009). The aim of this report, under the MetroRadon project, is to provide a literature review of existing indoor Rn surveys in Europe. Different steps of the “survey chain”, e.g. from survey design through sampling, measurements to evaluation and interpretation, that yield an output have been explored. Journal papers and papers in international and national conference proceedings were reviewed, resulting in data collected from 45 countries. The information contained in the report should serve as an input to propose approaches to reduce inconsistencies and improve harmonization of indoor radon data.JRC.G.10-Knowledge for Nuclear Security and Safet

Comparison of radon mapping methods for the delineation of radon priority areas - an exercise

Background: Many different methods are applied for radon mapping depending on the purpose of the map and the data that are available. In addition, the definitions of radon priority areas (RPA) in EU Member States, as requested in the new European EURATOM BSS (1), are diverse. Objective: 1) Comparison of methods for mapping geogenic and indoor radon, 2) the possible transferability of a mapping method developed in one region to other regions and 3) the evaluation of the impact of different mapping methods on the delineation of RPAs. Design: Different mapping methods and several RPA definitions were applied to the same data sets from six municipalities in Austria and Cantabria, Spain. Results: Some mapping methods revealed a satisfying degree of agreement, but relevant differences were also observed. The chosen threshold for RPA classification has a major impact, depending on the level of radon concentration in the area. The resulting maps were compared regarding the spatial estimates and the delineation of RPAs. Conclusions: Not every mapping method is suitable for every available data set. Data robustness and harmonisation are the main requirements, especially if the used data set is not designed for a specific technique. Different mapping methods often deliver similar results in RPA classification. The definition of thresholds for the classification and delineation of RPAs is a guidance factor in the mapping process and is as relevant as harmonising mapping methods depending on the radon levels in the area.Funding: This work is supported by the European Metrology Programme for Innovation and Research (EMPIR), JRPContract 16ENV10 MetroRADON (www.euramet.com). The EMPIR initiative is co-funded by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme and the EMPIR Participating States

Similarities and differences between radon surveys across Europe: results from MetroRADON questionnaire

Background: As a major cause of lung cancer after smoking, indoor radon is a hazard for human health. Key steps of radon surveys are numerous and include metrology, survey design, development of maps, communication of results to stakeholders, etc. The Council Directive 2013/59/EURATOM introduced new challenges for European Union Member States, such as the identification of radon priority areas, which calls for efforts to improve all the key steps involved in radon surveys. Objective: This study aims to compare existing radon measurement procedures between different European countries and to use the results to optimize the consistency of indoor radon data across Europe. Design: A questionnaire was developed and sent to more than 70 European institutions working in this field to collect information on indoor radon surveys carried out in the respective countries, in order to identify the rationale and methodologies used. Results: A total of 56 questionnaire forms on indoor radon surveys were completed and returned by universities, research institutions, and competent authorities on national and regional surveys from 24 European countries. The replies have been analyzed, and the main findings have been reported, although these replies did not allow to answer all the questions about comparability. Conclusions: From the replies given by the respondents, there is evidence that European indoor radon surveys are comparable regarding measurement methods but not comparable regarding the survey design. Comparability regarding data management, statistical treatment, aggregation, and mapping is unclear on the basis of the replies putting in evidence the need of further information

Qualitative overview of indoor radon surveys in Europe

The revised European Directive from 2013 regarding basic safety standard oblige EU Member States to establish a national action plan regarding the exposure to radon. At the same time, International Atomic Energy Agency started technical projects in order to assist countries to establish and implement national radon action. As a consequence, in recent years, in numerous countries national radon surveys were conducted and action plans established, which were not performed before. In this paper, a qualitative overview of radon surveys performed in Europe is given with a special attention to the qualitative and conceptual description of surveys, representativeness and QA/QC (quality assurance/quality control). © 201

Outdoor Radon as a Tool to Estimate Radon Priority Areas—A Literature Overview

Doses from the exposure to outdoor radon are typically an order of magnitude smaller than those from indoor radon, causing a greater interest on investigation of the latter for radiation protection issues. As a consequence, assessment of radon priority areas (RPA) is mainly based on indoor radon measurements. Outdoor radon measurements might be needed to guarantee a complete estimation of radiological risk and may help to improve the estimation of RPA. Therefore, authors have analysed the available literature on outdoor radon to give an overview of outdoor radon surveys and potential correlation with indoor radon and estimation of RPA. The review has shown that outdoor radon surveys were performed at much smaller scale compared to indoor radon. Only a few outdoor radon maps were produced, with a much smaller density, covering a larger area, and therefore putting doubt on the representativeness of this data. Due to a large variety of techniques used for outdoor radon measurements and requirement to have detectors with a high sensitivity and resistance to harsh environmental conditions, a standardised measurement protocol should be derived. This is no simple endeavour since there are more applications in different scientific disciplines for outdoor radon measurements compared to indoor radon

On harmonization of radon maps

Background: Maps are important tools for geographic visualization of the state of the environment with respect to resources as well as to hazards. One of the hazards is indoor radon (Rn), believed to be the most important cause of lung cancer after smoking. In particular, as part of Rn mitigation policy and in compliance with the European Basic Safety Standards, EU Member States have to declare areas with elevated indoor Rn concentration levels. However, as this is done by national authorities according to individually chosen criteria, the resulting maps are not easily comparable.Objective: We aim to identify causes for the lack of compatibility of maps and suggest solutions for the problem.Design: This study draws from experiences of recent research projects, literature, and personal involvement of the authors in the discussions.Results: An overview is given on causes and effects of lack of compatibility between maps. Existing experiences are reported. Options for defining lack of compatibility and for identifying it are discussed. Methods for harmonization, that is, remediating lack of compatibility, are addressed.Conclusions: The difficulty of harmonization increases with the aggregation level of data which support maps. Harmonization is the more difficult, the higher aggregated the data are which support maps. In particular, harmonization of radon priority area maps is technically non-trivial, and theoretical efforts as well as practical tests will have to be undertaken.Special issue - European Radon Week 202

Overview of Radon Flux Characteristics, Measurements, Models and Its Potential Use for the Estimation of Radon Priority Areas

Radon flux measurements provide information about how much radon rises from the ground toward the atmosphere, thus, they could serve as good predictors of indoor radon concentrations. Although there are many different mapping methods with many different input data, radon flux data are generally missing and are not included for the delineation of radon priority areas (RPA). The aim of this literature review is to investigate to what extent radon flux was used, or could be used, for the delineation of RPAs. Numerous factors influencing radon flux were identified, but quantifying their contribution to radon flux measurement still remains a challenge. Different methods and measuring devices were used for the determination of radon flux, thus it is necessary to identify possible inconsistencies in order to harmonise different radon flux measurements. Due to the complexity of radon flux measurements, only two countries were identified to have performed national surveys on outdoor radon, which were of much smaller scale compared to those on indoor radon. A positive correlation between radon flux and radon quantities, such as radon in soil gas and indoor radon, indicates that radon flux could be used as an input parameter for the estimation of RPA. By reviewing radon flux models, it was concluded that up-to-date modelled radon flux maps have reached excellent spatial resolution and will be further improved, hence, they could serve as an input for the estimation and delineation of RPA

STAT3 regulated ARF expression suppresses prostate cancer metastasis.

Prostate cancer (PCa) is the most prevalent cancer in men. Hyperactive STAT3 is thought to be oncogenic in PCa. However, targeting of the IL-6/STAT3 axis in PCa patients has failed to provide therapeutic benefit. Here we show that genetic inactivation of Stat3 or IL-6 signalling in a Pten-deficient PCa mouse model accelerates cancer progression leading to metastasis. Mechanistically, we identify p19(ARF) as a direct Stat3 target. Loss of Stat3 signalling disrupts the ARF-Mdm2-p53 tumour suppressor axis bypassing senescence. Strikingly, we also identify STAT3 and CDKN2A mutations in primary human PCa. STAT3 and CDKN2A deletions co-occurred with high frequency in PCa metastases. In accordance, loss of STAT3 and p14(ARF) expression in patient tumours correlates with increased risk of disease recurrence and metastatic PCa. Thus, STAT3 and ARF may be prognostic markers to stratify high from low risk PCa patients. Our findings challenge the current discussion on therapeutic benefit or risk of IL-6/STAT3 inhibition.Lukas Kenner and Jan Pencik are supported by FWF, P26011 and the Genome Research-Austria project “Inflammobiota” grants. Helmut Dolznig is supported by the Herzfelder Family Foundation and the Niederösterr. Forschungs-und Bildungsges.m.b.H (nfb). Richard Moriggl is supported by grant SFB-F2807 and SFB-F4707 from the Austrian Science Fund (FWF), Ali Moazzami is supported by Infrastructure for biosciences-Strategic fund, SciLifeLab and Formas, Zoran Culig is supported by FWF, P24428, Athena Chalaris and Stefan Rose-John are supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (Grant SFB 877, Project A1and the Cluster of Excellence --“Inflammation at Interfaces”). Work of the Aberger lab was supported by the Austrian Science Fund FWF (Projects P25629 and W1213), the European FP7 Marie-Curie Initial Training Network HEALING and the priority program Biosciences and Health of the Paris-Lodron University of Salzburg. Valeria Poli is supported by the Italian Association for Cancer Research (AIRC, No IG13009). Richard Kennedy and Steven Walker are supported by the McClay Foundation and the Movember Centre of Excellence (PC-UK and Movember). Gerda Egger is supported by FWF, P27616. Tim Malcolm and Suzanne Turner are supported by Leukaemia and Lymphoma Research.This is the final version of the article. It first appeared from Nature Publishing Group via http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ncomms873