4.1. Radon Gas News Coverage
The content analysis of the news (n1 = 579) allowed us to make a general characterization of the news coverage on radon in the local media of the Spanish regions most affected by the gas (O1).
The first data that we observed are the volume of publication of the news analysed per year (
Figure 1). In these 20 years, we identified an increasing evolution in the number of news items published on radon—particularly remarkable since 2017.
Analysing the thematic focus in general, it is observed that in 83.7% of the news items, radon was mentioned in relation to health, in 46.1% to research, in 39.5% to housing and urban planning, in 28.4% to politics, in 15.2% to the environment, and in 9.4% to other topics. It is common for two or more thematic approaches to coexist in one news item.
Radon gas was the main topic in 48.7% of the news items analysed. In general, the information is related to maps of gas incidence by geographical areas, measurements, prevention actions—solutions in homes, public buildings, etc.—or with research projects, their results and dissemination actions.
Among the news items in which radon was a secondary topic, those related to cancer stand out. In these cases, radon appeared as a risk factor associated with the development of this disease, mainly lung cancer. In the rest of the news, we found a series of frequent topics: political issues, in relation to the holding of municipal plenary sessions to discuss plans to measure and implement solutions against radon, or on subsidies to apply meters and gas evacuation systems in buildings; construction and urban planning policy, in relation to measurements, renovations, and solutions in public and private buildings; research projects and outreach activities on radon gas, its incidence, or health risks; occupational safety and risks in the workplace; and the environment and natural surroundings, in relation to the presence of the gas in caves, hot springs, mines, or its expulsion in earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, or geysers.
Regarding news values, the most frequent were novelty (77.0%) and relevance (72.9%). Radon is not a topic that receives continuous attention from the media, but it manages to position itself on the agenda when something new happens and is considered relevant. As already mentioned, the most recurrent news on radon report new plans or measurement results by geographical areas, new research results in relation to health or other factors, the approval of new actions, political measures, or economic aid to take solutions and reduce exposure to radon. In general, the novelty is linked to the relevance of the risk posed to human health by exposure to radon gas, the importance of knowing about it and being able to prevent it. The news value of the conflict was much less frequent (12.8%) and appeared in news items, generally at the municipal level, in which political discussions about radon or protests by unions and workers due to exposure to dangerous levels of radon in their workplaces were reported.
Regarding the information sources cited in the news (
Table 2), most of the pieces only cited one source (61.0%), with those citing two (20.7%) or three (10.0%) being less frequent. According to the type of source (
Table 3), the most frequently cited were research institutions or organizations (33.1%). Among these, the presence of the World Health Organization stands out as the reference institution that sets radon concentration levels that pose a health risk, or the Nuclear Safety Council, which, in Spain, is the referent in the publication of national mappings of the presence of the gas. Also relevant was the presence of research groups specialized in radon or radioactivity belonging to Spanish universities, such as the Galician Radon Laboratory (University of Santiago de Compostela, USC), the Radiation Analysis Laboratory (USC), the Nuclear Radiation Experimental Group (University of Extremadura), the Environmental Radioactivity Laboratory (University of Cantabria), or the Ionizing Radiation Laboratory (University of Salamanca). Other research centres or entities related to health—such as the Spanish Society of Oncology, the Spanish Society of Pneumology and Thoracic Surgery, or the International Agency for Research on Cancer—, geology and the study of the natural environment—such as the Institute for Geoenvironmental Health, the National Geographic Institute, or the Geological and Mining Institute of Spain—, and other reference institutes such as the Spanish National Research Council (CSIC) were also frequently cited.
Sources belonging to the public administration were the second most cited type (23.6%). Among these, the most frequent were those belonging to local government bodies: city councils, regional government departments—in health, urban planning, infrastructure, etc.—and provincial councils. Sources from the national government and some ministries appeared with less weight. The third type of sources most cited were experts (19.1%), among whom we found, in general, researchers from the aforementioned research groups and institutions (mainly those specialized in radon) and reference professionals in the field of health (mainly oncology and pneumology), geological and natural environment studies or with experience in the design of solutions against radon—especially measurement and evacuation of buildings. Civil associations (8.2%)—workers’ unions, professional associations, cancer and environmental associations; companies (6.4%) specialized in gas measurement and disposal; political parties (5.6%)usually as part of the political opposition to the aforementioned government bodies; and citizens (3.0%)—appeared with less weight. According to the degree of proximity, 31.8% of the sources cited were regional, 26.5% were national, 25.7% were local, and 13.7% were international.
Regarding the geographic scope or degree of proximity of the news (
Table 4), it was observed that news stories on radon gas were constructed from local and closer to the citizens spaces . This was also evident in the thematic sections in which the media classified the news about radon (
Table 5), whereby the local section was the most frequent (63.3%), followed by society (14.0%) and health (5.4%).
In addition to building stories about radon from proximity, how the risks associated with exposure to the gas are related and explained is important. Therefore, a qualitative analysis of the reporting on the risk magnitude in the news has been carried out. It is noted that, although the news presented the latest data on radon, they often included a contextualization explaining what it is, how it is produced naturally in the subsoil, the geological characteristics of the most affected areas, or its presence in the air and water. The different risk levels defined by the WHO in relation to gas concentration were also explained, as well as the European regulatory framework and the slow transposition in Spain. As we have seen, radon appears very frequently related to health, since in the news it is also frequently explained that exposure to the gas is an important risk factor in the development of cancer, especially lung cancer. In the description of the risk, citizens were also frequently informed about possible solutions: daily ventilation of indoor spaces was emphasized as the most affordable and effective measure, but also regarding options for measuring the gas, installing evacuation systems, or about policies and measures to support building renovations.
4.2. Journalists Reporting on Radon Gas
During the distribution of the questionnaire, five responses were obtained between May and October 2023. The anonymity of the journalists is preserved, but we can point out that all of them are professionals in regional and provincial media outlets with different positions: a director, two editors-in-chief, an editor of health and biosanitary research, and a reporter.
All the journalists surveyed considered the level of radon incidence in their region to be high or medium, and four agreed or strongly agreed that it is a risk to public health. All of them also agreed that the public is not well informed about radon gas, although three of them pointed out that the public does not demand information about it either.
When assessing the performance of the media in general, all journalists stated that they are not communicating effectively about the dangers of radon. When evaluating the news coverage of the media in which they work, one considered it appropriate, another one considered it sufficient, and three others considered it null. They attributed this negative assessment to the fact that radon, as a news topic, does not occupy an important or continuous place on the media agenda, therefore it is not given notable coverage. One of them related this lack of relevance in the agenda with the perception of risk, because “although radon has harmful effects on health, its incidence is not immediate and therefore it is perceived as a low risk”. Another one pointed out the difficulty in finding in the local environment “outstanding research, local specialists who campaign on the subject […], as if it were a secondary problem, not important, to which not much attention is paid”. On the other hand, the director of one of the media outlets analysed recognized that there may be “an important business and university pressure to avoid bad information”, while a reporter believed that there could be “economic interests behind the companies that work with radon”.
Journalists believed that the knowledge of the public and the information they receive about radon gas could be improved by producing more reports on the subject, giving a voice to experts in the field, taking advantage of the celebration of European Radon Day on November 7 to place the issue on the agenda and seek impact on social networks, and, in general, by expanding the information available.
Regarding their media coverage, three of the five journalists interviewed stated that they always or sometimes produce information on their own initiative, based on press releases from research institutions or the public administration. Only two pointed to communications from companies in the sector as a starting point for news coverage. In relation to sources, journalists identified experts, academics, and research institutions, as well as civil associations as the most frequently cited or consulted. Political parties, public administration, companies, and citizens were the least frequently mentioned. The informative focus they identified as the most common in the news about radon was health and prevention, followed by housing and urban planning, research, and environment. None of them identified a policy and regulation-oriented focus in radon news.
The journalists interviewed unanimously agreed in identifying cancer, specifically lung cancer, as the risk associated with radon that was most widely reported. They recognized that media outlets were responsible for the news they disseminate, but that it should be the public administration and the scientific community who assume responsibility for alerting the public to the dangers associated with radon. From journalism and the media, professionals agreed that risk communication should be managed with rigor, responsibility, and objectivity. They said that it is necessary to give “clear and explanatory information, being very didactic about the risks”, telling the news “without alarmism or looking for easy headlines”. The journalists interviewed also recognised that it is important to “follow ethical principles, follow the recommendations of professional associations, have a person in charge of coordinating this type of information in the newsroom and have reliable official sources available, not interested ones”. It can be concluded that “the media are the most effective vehicle for transmitting messages as important as risk communication, because citizens rarely go to direct sources, but receive recommendations directly from the media”. In addition, one of them remarked that “the media must be rigorous when filtering what is really important; be specific and local”.
4.3. Public Perceptions of Radon Risk and Communication
The Spanish population showed a medium-high interest in being informed about what is happening in their environment and in the world (M (mean) = 5.4 out of 7), with 25.9% saying they were “extremely interested”. This interest was higher the older the individual (p < 0.001) and increased along with level of education (p < 0.001).
Although disaffection and distrust of the media is a global phenomenon, the Spanish population manifested active news avoidance at moderate levels (3.1 out of 7), with 26.0% expressing avoidance (5–7 on the scale). There were statistically significant differences by age, with news avoidance being higher the younger the individual (p < 0.001).
The main channels consulted (in reference to the week prior to conducting the survey) were, in order: television (73.2%), digital media (45.6%), radio (37.2%), Facebook (30.7%), written press (28.8%), YouTube (28.8%), WhatsApp (26.4%), Instagram (24.1%), and Twitter (21.9%). Regarding the media they consult for information daily, the most frequent was television, followed by digital media and social networks, followed by radio, instant messaging apps, and press.
When asked through which channels they had received information about radon at some point (
Table 6), the answers were generally coincident with the most used media, taking into account that 46.5% said they received information through media outlets: 30.1% indicated having received information about radon through television, followed by digital media (20.1%), press (12.9%), and radio (11.5%). A total of 19.3% indicated that they received information about radon through social networks and instant messaging apps, including YouTube, Facebook, WhatsApp, and Instagram.
Statistically significant differences by gender and age were identified. More men indicated having received information about radon through mass media (p < 0.001); through networks, it was more frequent among 18–29-year-olds (p < 0.001). In communities with a high incidence, no statistically significant differences were detected with respect to other regions.
Regarding the sources cited in the news content on radon (
Table 7), the government was the most frequently recalled source (24.7%), followed by NGOs (16.7%), the Spanish Nuclear Safety Council (14.9%), and political parties (8.1%), with the important limitation that 45.3% did not remember the origin of the information. A tendency was identified in male citizens, who remembered more frequently that the information came from the government or NGOs. And a statistically significant difference was noted by age: the younger the person, the more they indicated political parties as the source, both in the 18–29 and 30–44 age groups (
p < 0.01). No statistically significant differences were detected in the communities with high incidence.
We complemented this approximation to the informative perception of the population by inquiring into the information received through communication actions implemented by different institutions or groups (
Table 8). Only 8.7% knew that specific radon risk communication activities had been carried out in the country. And the best support for transmitting preventive information about this gas, according to citizens, were media outlets (for 68.4%) and social networks (46.4%). The main finding is that 58.2% considered that they have not been informed about radon. The results show that the main source of information on radon is media outlets (19.5% of those surveyed indicated having received information from them). The European Union, scientific organizations, family and friends, and the workplace were the next most important sources of information about radon. Below 8% were the state, regional, and municipal governments, followed by other groups and institutions at levels below 5% and representing exceptional cases. However, these data should be evaluated taking into account that they correspond to the perceptions of citizens.
Through the ANOVA test, multiple variables were identified in which there is a statistically significant difference by gender or age, although not by the level of radon incidence by community. Statistically significant differences were also identified in some of the variables by gender (higher in men) and by age (higher in the 18–29 age group in general), although these data are not of particular interest for this study.
With respect to trust in the aforementioned institutions and groups, scientific organizations (5.2 out of 7) and the Nuclear Safety Council (4.9) stand out in first place. In second place are the faculty (4.8) and the school (4.7), as well as the living environment—friends and family (4.66). This was followed by the workplace (4.5), the European Union (4.4), and media outlets (4.2). At the lowest level were regional (4.0), municipal (3.9), and state (3.9) government bodies.
These results reflect this dispersion between the level of information and trust that citizens have in the actors involved in radon risk communication. To explore this issue, and as a tool for analysis and design for future communication actions, we constructed a graph based on quadrants (
Figure 2) in which the different institutions or groups are placed according to their impact on the public (information received, X axis) and the trust of citizens in them (Y axis). Thus, we can see that the first quadrant (top right) is blank and represents those actors who would be recognized as sources of information on radon and who are also trusted by the public. The second quadrant (top left) represents the actors that generate trust but are rarely identified as sources of information. In the third quadrant (lower left), we find actors who are neither valued as trustworthy nor as frequent sources of information on radon. The fourth quadrant presents those actors who are identified as sources, although trust in them is not high. The main reading that can be drawn is that the media are the most frequent channel of information, while scientific organizations, the Spanish Nuclear Safety Council and living environments (family, education, and work) are the ones that generate the most trust but are not perceived as present in the media.