The terms Environmental & Environment have been much misused, since what distinguishes a true environmental issue is irreversibility over any sensible time-scale. An example is the destruction of tropical forests, and all their associated species. The phrase "Extinction is forever" has been coined by environmentalists.

Concern for "The Environment" should be distinct from that centred upon health issues, where the primary unwelcome effect is upon people. This distinction is only now being recognised.

Confusion is still common when it is something in the local environment (or the indoor air) that gives rise to a real or imagined risk to health, or when there are both environmental and health implications. An example is the use of pesticides on crops. Environmental consequences may be severe (as with DDT, the use of which continues in the Third World) whilst the direct effects of human exposure may be small or zero.

Other chemicals may have no demonstrable effects on the environment, yet pose a slight risk if traces remain in food or water. The judgement in all cases should be on ultimate consequence, but having regard to marginal cost-benefit analysis - or the law of diminishing returns.

Confusion is also evident in peoples' understanding of anything 'nuclear'. These problems may be classified broadly into two groups. The first includes where failure to take suitable precautions could result in sudden release of large amounts of radioactivity, or unauthorised possession of fissile material. Substantial expenditure will continue to be justified.

The other group of problems are those where failure to act or legislate could never result in a security incident or widespread contamination, but where some precautions may be desirable to limit dose to members of the public or in work-places. Here, costs and benefits might more properly be analysed in terms of health expenditure.

A generation of people have good reason to associate radioactivity with fear, secrecy and deceit. Most of the public (here taken to include most politicians) seem thoroughly confused. As a consequence, radiological protection has been able to obtain funding beyond that which might have been granted were the risks from many 'nuclear' problems to have been properly classified and more widely understood.

This is not a unique situation, as the asbestos debacle in the USA shows all too clearly. There, massive (multi-billion dollar) expenditure has resulted in poor cost-benefit at the margins. However, once abatement or protection becomes well established it is politically difficult if not impossible to encourage or regain a proper perspective, especially (these days) if the proponents claim to be 'environmental'.

Perspective has also been lacking within the pesticide debate in the USA, as elsewhere. Over 30 years ago the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act in the USA required that no traces of any chemical known to exhibit carcinogenic properties in any concentration should be permitted.

The intention was laudable (if rather idealistic) but the legislation did not allow for advances that could have been foreseen in detection of residues, or for improved knowledge of how chemicals caused cancer.

Faced with the problem that strict adherence to the law would effectively prohibit the use of many agricultural chemicals in common use, the US EPA later adopted the reasonable approach of allowing use so long as the calculated risks were very small (rather than zero). One additional cancer per million people exposed was selected as a criterium. This was entirely sensible, since it is unlikely that any chemical poison could present utterly no risk in production, storage or use.

Similarly, the Safe Drinking Water Act (see Section 35) seeks to limit contaminants to extremely low risk levels, and partly as a consequence of concern over man-made pollution of industrial sites and water supplies. There is no requirement for zero risk, perhaps because the impossibility of achieving it was recognised.

In contrast to the one-in-a-million and similar risk factors that have been used within pesticide and water regulation, advocates of radon control should be content with calculated residual risks 1000 to 10,000 times greater. This is simply because concentrations of radon in outdoor air range from 2 to perhaps 50 Bq/m³, giving calculated lifetime risks for non-smokers that may be as high as 1 in 10,000 to 1 in 400.

Levels in tens of millions of dwellings range up to 100 Bq/m³, giving a possible risk from lifetime exposure of 1 in 200. Risks of this magnitude would be considered unacceptable from 'chemicals' in houses - witness the debate over formaldehyde from chipboard and some types of wall insulation.

However, much of the misunderstanding and dispute surrounding radon has its origins in the aspirations of a few experts and career administrators to treat it as a nuclear issue. Upwards of £10,000 per dwelling and commensurate research funding might then be devoted to remediation, and with the eventual aim (in the USA) of reducing indoor radon levels to no greater than those outdoors. The likely economic consequences of such an idea in terms of marginal cost-benefit may be calculated on the back of an envelope (or perhaps more aptly, on the back of a cigarette packet) but this did not prevent politicians being encouraged to support the necessary legislation. Indeed, some of them may have supported such a national goal without even seeking proper scientific guidance. In its latest Citizens Guide to Radon, EPA admits that this goal is "not yet technologically achievable in all cases". Whether it is logical or economically sensible is not addressed.

In context as a domestic health matter, relevant expenditure would be calculated against a background of other health costs and benefits for the household, or (for public expenditure) for the Nation, see Sections 25, 31 and 39.

Despite the availability of rational and published analysis, radon has been referred to as the greatest environmental problem faced by the United States. However, the frantic and alarmist publicity campaign led by a few administrators (see Sections 34 & 42), has left public concern about radon at a low level. It may be conjectured that people have an innate sense that something entirely natural and that has been present since the world began cannot suddenly constitute an environmental hazard. In this they are correct, but often the 'natural' origin of radon is cited as a reason to dismiss health implications also.

Amid all the contemporary clamour and claims for protection of The Environment, it seems unclear whether proper levels of funding and concern will be applied to real environmental problems. Inevitably, the many vested interests in health and environment will continue their separate battles for funding and public recognition. Within each area, improvements in relative resource allocation will result.

The greater issue, that of deciding allocation between major headings has not yet been properly addressed. The necessary framework - although simple - is not easily discerned amid the mass of risk and risk management literature. Indeed, this may be part of the problem: the mathematics of risk management and economics appear both daunting and inaccessible to all but experts.

In this situation, it may be necessary to adhere to some instinctive beliefs and logical arguments, and to await the production of supporting analysis. It has long been recognised that both politicians and environmental groups lack a unified framework within which to argue for funding, but there are signs that some groups now recognise the requirement. A decade of frenzied and partial programmes (and programs) has produced many projects based only on narrow perspectives.

Within environmental assessment, the need for strategic overview was recognised a decade ago but implementation has been patchy. Many assessments are based only on analysis at a project level. Much the same is true in other areas.

Another part of the problem is that many experts are content to argue and to extend their case only within the bounds of their expertise. Often they are constrained by a belief (or an instruction) that they should mind their own business.

Government Departments are particularly sensitive to staff breaching the sanctity of a rival Department's remit. As a consequence, open debate is largely stifled and partial policies escape proper scrutiny.

Effective pressure for improved analysis may therefore be expected to originate within a few of the less partial environmental or health lobby groups, and with improved official policies following some years later.

Recent debate on the need for (and benefit from) EC regulations on purity of drinking water reflect similar debates in the USA: the funds involved could finance many health programs and to known benefit. It is notable (and probably deliberate) that at few radon conferences are the benefits of marginal intervention assessed in a health context.

More generally, benefits from environmental legislation at the margins of clean-up cannot be demonstrated, because there is no reliable risk data for most pollutants - including radon.

Perhaps the best that can be hoped for is that some farsighted and independent politician with an innate sense of what is being lost in the wider environment may seek to address the issue.

The countless billions of dollars spent routinely in the USA on frivolous consumer products have been cited by senior EPA administrators as a rationale for spending far more money on radon. Within the confines of their own subject area they have a good case, but a better argument can be made for spending less money on radon, and yet more on issues of population and world energy consumption.

The world awaits the emergence of an American politician (or an EPA administrator) prepared to oversee an increase of gasoline (petrol) prices in the USA by a factor of three in real terms within five years.

If the principal issues of Environment are not properly addressed they may lead to deaths and misery on an unparalleled scale, and dwarfing all the calculated consequences of inadequate 'health' or 'environmental clean-up' budgets.

In the UK, and as one response to perceived concern over "a healthy environment" it has been suggested that a new body, an Institute for the Environment and Health, be formed. It is proposed that its work might cover risks to both human health and the natural environment from exposure to hazardous chemicals in the environment. To some extent this would be a move in the direction of an American style EPA (as has already been proposed in the UK).

However, given that the risks from hazardous chemicals outside of a few work-place situations are already at a very low level in the West, any funding that is purported to be 'environmental'  might be better spent elsewhere. Residual funding from Health budgets might be directed to areas where major causes of premature death or impairment remain underfunded. There are many of these, and resources need to be targeted at those that can produce the greatest benefits.

The recent proposal to commit yet further funding to chemicals in the (Western) environment as both an environmental concern and a health issue is entirely in line with the political rush to environmental kudos.

If the pattern seen in the USA is followed then thorough analysis may be expected to be applied more in assessing misdirection than in the initial formulation of objectives, a strategy to meet the objectives, and policies and programmes to achieve strategic goals. Furthermore, the analysis is unlikely to be performed (or even the need for it to be recognised) within some of the partial bodies entrusted with public funds.

Real environmental problems are now recognised. As a consequence of public concerns (however misdirected in many cases), funds of unparalleled magnitude may be available to be devoted to understanding and even to resolution of these problems. Unfortunately there can be no quick fixes - which would limit political appeal were public concerns to falter.

However, in order that any opportunity is not lost it must no longer quietly be tolerated for further and substantial funding to be directed at marginal cleaning up of the environment (and in the name of The Environment) without marginal cost benefit analysis. This applies both to the outdoor environment and to matters such as radon - a subject that is strictly within the domain of household risks and benefits for all but occupational exposure.

There are many other minor problems that could be addressed via 'popular' technology or that have an appeal to one pressure group or another (or perhaps more often to an individual or two within the group). Examples are extreme purity of drinking water, even better catalysts on large cars, more readily recyclable soft drinks cans, enforced recycling of bacon wrappers and yoghurt pots, and benzene recovery at petrol pumps. These and many others are in essence 'convenience' or 'feel good' projects - easy to classify under a budget heading, amenable to regulation or standardisation by national and international bodies, and yielding the satisfaction of seeing a 'better' product or process within a short time.

In contrast, real environmental problems are centred upon over-population (including of the West), profligate resource usage, global warming, ozone depletion, loss of species, loss of forests, degradation of lands and despoliation of the seas. Most of these are more consequential than causal and no quick solutions are available. Indeed, many detrimental changes that have not yet occurred but that are already perceived and understood may not be avoided, such is the momentum of destruction.

next page

top of radon section