)
Why the Risk of Radon Differs Between Canada and the U.S.
What the Data Shows
Safety
Radon—a colorless, odorless radioactive gas—remains a leading cause of lung cancer after smoking. Both Canada and the United States face meaningful radon risk, but the apparent burden on each country can look different depending on how you frame the data and what you measure.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates ~21,000 radon‑related lung cancer deaths per year in the U.S., while Health Canada cites “more than 3,000” in Canada. On a simple per‑capita basis, these figures imply broadly similar burdens across the two countries; however, they are model‑based and sensitive to assumptions (e.g., population smoking patterns, age, exposure). On a 100,000 per-capita basis, both countries have similar death rates from radon: with the U.S. at 6.5% and Canada at 7.2%.
This article summarizes what’s actually known (and what isn’t), using neutral, per‑capita context and current standards for testing and mitigation.
Understanding Radon’s Health Risks
)
Radon forms when uranium in soil and rock breaks down, seeping into homes through cracks and gaps in the foundation. It’s invisible, odorless, and tasteless, making it impossible to detect without specialized testing. Long-term exposure to elevated radon levels increases the risk of lung cancer, particularly for individuals who smoke or have other respiratory vulnerabilities. Despite widespread knowledge of this danger, misconceptions persist, such as the belief that a lack of immediate health issues means radon isn’t a problem.
Are Canada and the U.S. “doing better” or “worse”? It depends on the lens.
Modelled deaths
EPA’s current estimate suggest about 21,000 radon-related lung cancer deaths annually in the U.S. and more than 3,000 in Canada. These figures come from risk models (e.g., BEIR VI) that apply assumptions about exposure patterns, smoking prevalence, and demographics. They are not direct counts, and differences in methodology mean the numbers should be viewed as approximations rather than precise comparisons.
Per‑capita context
When adjusted for population size, both countries show similar risk levels when comparing deaths by radon exposure. This calculation provides helpful perspective, but it doesn’t capture all underlying factors, such as regional geology, lifestyle, and variations in data collection methods.
What likely drives differences in risk and outcomes?
At first glance, comparing radon-related lung cancer numbers between Canada and the U.S. might suggest one country is “doing better” than the other; however, the reality is more complex. These differences arise from a mix of factors that interact in subtle ways, including geology, housing practices, smoking prevalence, and policy frameworks. None of these influences act in isolation, and the data behind them often involves estimates rather than hard counts.
Where people live (geology & housing)
Radon potential varies by region and even house‑to‑house. The U.S. has extensive high‑potential areas, and ~1 in 15 homes exceed the EPA action level. Canadian national surveys show substantial shares of homes above the guideline, ~6.9% (2012 data) and ~17.8% in a 2024 cross‑Canada analysis, plus patterns such as higher radon in many rural areas. These data points show that both countries have widespread exposure potential.
)
)
Building codes and new construction practices
Radon potential varies by region and even house‑to‑house. The U.S. has extensive high‑potential areas, and ~1 in 15 homes exceed the EPA action level. Canadian national surveys show substantial shares of homes above the guideline, ~6.9% (2012 data) and ~17.8% in a 2024 cross‑Canada analysis, plus patterns such as higher radon in many rural areas. These data points show that both countries have widespread exposure potential.
Smoking prevalence and synergy with radon
Smoking and radon multiply risk. Canada’s adult cigarette smoking prevalence is roughly ~10% (2022) vs the U.S. near ~11–12% (2022–2023); lower smoking prevalence can translate to fewer radon‑related lung cancers all else equal.
)
)
Policies and testing programs (especially in schools/public buildings)
National programs exist (e.g., Health Canada’s National Radon Program; EPA and state radon programs), but requirements differ by jurisdiction. In the U.S., at least 10 states require radon testing in schools, and 17 have recommended policies; EPA estimates ~1 in 5 schools has at least one room above 4 pCi/L. In Canada, Health Canada provides testing guidance for public buildings; implementation varies by province/territory and municipality.
Take action (wherever you live)
Knowing why risks differ is helpful, but what truly matters is reducing them. That starts with testing and, if needed, professional mitigation using trusted solutions.
Testing
Test long‑term (≥ 3 months). Consider a C‑NRPP‑approved electronic monitor (Canada) or follow EPA/ANSI‑AARST protocols (U.S.).
Mitigation
If high, fix with Active Soil Depressurization (ASD) mitigation systems, then retest.
Use Certified Professionals
U.S.: Find an NRPP-certified mitigator or measurement pro.
Canada: Find a CNRPP-certified professional.
Talk to a certified mitigator in your region and ask about installing or activating an ASD system with a radon fan. If you already have a system, schedule a checkup and retest.
Conclusion
Radon remains a serious but preventable health risk in both Canada and the United States. While differences in estimated deaths often grab attention, per‑capita data show that the burden is similar and is shaped by multiple factors such as geology, building practices, smoking rates, and policy frameworks. These nuances matter, but the most important takeaway is simple: test your home and take action if levels are high. Certified mitigation and reliable solutions, like Fantech radon fans in ASD systems, can dramatically reduce exposure and protect your family’s health. Prevention starts with awareness—and ends with action.