Skip top navigation

Stacie Smith's blog

An example of successful dialogue

This is the second post in a two-part blog on the Radon Stakeholder Dialogue. Read the first post: Reflections from the Radon Stakeholder Dialogue Facilitator.

When I first started working with the Radon community, one of the biggest concerns raised was the existence of two competing voluntary standards for radon mitigation. People feared consumer confusion, continuing competition between the two organizations who set the standards, and conflict for education programs and certification programs – who would have to choose which to teach and test – and regulated states – who might adopt one standard but work with professionals trained in the other. And even deeper challenges –poor relationships, ineffective communication, bad history, and lack of trust among parties – underlay the dispute.

Reflections from the Radon Stakeholder Dialogue Facilitator

As a relative outsider to the Radon community, I have been struck by how essential collaboration is to achieving the goals set by the Radon Leaders Saving Lives campaign, and how these goals in turn reflect the shared interests of the participating groups. No one group working on radon has the capacity to achieve it’s goals on it’s own, and all require and rely on the efforts of the others in order to meet the shared goals that each has come together to set. EPA’s mandate to
protect human health from the risks of radon gas, CRCPD’s aims to support State efforts to reduce radon exposure, and AARST’s mission to support a viable, skilled, and professional radon industry capable of providing measurement, mitigation, and information to the public – all