Why the Future of Healthy Buildings Is About Meeting People Where They Are - Rachel Hodgdon 118

This week, we sit down with Ciarán Cuffe, co-chair of the European Green Party and former rapporteur on the landmark revision of the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive, to explore a question that fundamentally challenges how we think about European policy and the built environment: What if the single biggest barrier to transforming our buildings isn't our lack of scientific knowledge or technology—but our complete failure to recognise that the most ambitious building legislation in European history was negotiated through late night deals, diplomatic trilogues, and careful political capital management, and that unless we understand how policy actually gets made, keep decision makers accountable during implementation, and translate technical directives into language that resonates with families worried about healthy homes, even the most groundbreaking legislation will fail at the national level? Key Topics Discussed: From Architecture to the Brussels Machine: Ciarán brings a rare perspective, moving from architecture and local government in Dublin to national politics and finally to the European Parliament, where he landed what he calls a policy wonk paradise. As rapporteur for the EPBD recast, he spent two-thirds of his final two years in Europe negotiating what would become the most ambitious building law the continent has ever seen. The Greens threw everything at securing this file during the auction process for committee assignments. They didn't think they would get it, but they did. And it became the centrepiece of the European Green five years, alongside the European Climate Law and over 20 interconnected pieces of legislation covering everything from maritime fuels to energy trading. Inside the Trilogues: European policymaking is not just about the parliament. It is about three institutions: the European Parliament, the Council of Member States, and the European Commission. Ciarán spent countless hours in meetings with Commission officials from DG Energy, attending Council meetings in Luxembourg where energy ministers gathered, and working the sidelines to convince national teams that specific provisions would work for Sweden, for Malta, for Cyprus. The final deals happened in late night trilogues, where representatives from all three bodies sat in a room with pieces of paper, writing down numbers and asking, can we live with a 16 percent energy reduction by 2030? People were on the phone back to ambassadors, back to capitals. Eventually, you get a deal done. But within a complex technical document, you win in some areas and lose in others. The Affordability Backlash: Almost immediately after the recast was agreed, there was a political backlash on affordability. In Italy, Salvini, the Minister for Transport, declared that Brussels was going to take your home. It became a huge story. Ciarán and his team had to do outreach to major Italian newspapers like Sole 24 Ore to clarify that no, Brussels was not taking anyone's home, and in fact, Brussels would supply much of the money required for deep retrofits. The pushback showed that the directive had been pushed about as far as politically possible. If there had been no reaction, it would have meant they hadn't been ambitious enough. Indoor Environmental Quality Enters the Directive: One of the most significant achievements of the recast is the embedding of indoor environmental quality as a fundamental pillar of building performance. This shift, recognised globally by the indoor air quality movement, moves buildings from being seen as units of energy to being seen as homes. Ciarán believes the pandemic helped make the case. High mortality rates in northern Italy, in overcrowded urban areas with poor outdoor and indoor air quality, made it stunningly obvious that we needed to focus on the quality of the spaces where people spend most of their lives. Many of his colleagues in Brussels were living in small apartments with no balconies, no private outdoor space. Improving

This week, we sit down with José Luis Gutiérrez Villanueva, a specialist radon measurement advisor at Radanova, member of the Commission on Radon Communication at the Spanish Professional Association of Physicists, and deeply involved in standards across Europe, to explore a question that fundamentally challenges how we think about indoor air quality and radiation protection: What if the single biggest barrier to protecting people from radon exposure isn't our lack of scientific knowledge or technology—but our complete failure to recognise that the only way to know your radon level is by measuring it, that no two buildings are the same, and that the invisible nature of this radioactive gas means millions of people are unknowingly breathing air that significantly increases their risk of lung cancer every single day? Key Topics Discussed: The European Directive That Changed Everything: Since 2014, when the new European Directive on Radiation Protection was approved, all 27 member states now have legislation in place with reference levels for radon. For the first time in the history of radiation protection in Europe, every country must have a number in their national legislation. This is a massive game changer. Before that, there were only recommendations. Some countries followed them, others did not. Now there is a legally binding reference level, and this has moved everything forward. What Is Radon and Why Does It Matter: Radon is a naturally occurring radioactive noble gas that comes from the decay of uranium in soil and rock. It is everywhere. Outdoors, levels are usually very low, but indoors, radon can accumulate to dangerous concentrations. When you breathe radon, the gas itself is inert and exhaled, but during its journey through your lungs, radon decays into radioactive polonium, which attaches to lung tissue and emits alpha particles. These alpha particles have enough energy to damage DNA, and over years of continuous exposure, this damage accumulates and significantly increases the risk of lung cancer. After smoking, radon is the second leading cause of lung cancer. How Passive Radon Detectors Work: Passive radon detectors use a special plastic called CR39 inside a holder. Radon gas diffuses into the holder, and when radon decays, it emits alpha particles that create microscopic tracks in the plastic. After exposure, the detector is returned to the lab where the plastic undergoes chemical etching. The etching process enlarges the tracks so they can be counted under a microscope. The lab counts the number of tracks per square millimetre, applies a calibration factor, and calculates the radon exposure. This is then divided by the exposure time to give a result in becquerels per cubic metre. Why You Cannot Predict Radon Without Measuring: You cannot compare your home with your neighbour's home. Even if you live in detached houses next to each other, your radon levels can be completely different. Radon levels can vary dramatically within the same property, from room to room, and over time. Weather, soil moisture, air pressure, ventilation, and building characteristics all affect radon. One home on top of a hill might see radon drop when it rains, while a home in the valley below sees radon increase. Radon levels can fluctuate by more than 50 percent from year to year. The only way to know your radon level is by testing. GUEST: José Luis Gutiérrez Villanueva Specialist Radon Measurement Advisor, Radanova https://www.linkedin.com/in/joseluis-gutierrez-radonspecialist/ The Air Quality Matters Podcast in Partnership with Mann + Hummel https://www.mann-hummel.com/en.html Particles Plus https://particlesplus.com/ Eurovent (https://www.eurovent.eu/) - Aico (https://www.aico.co.uk/) - Lindab (https://www.lindab.ie/) - S&P UK (https://www.solerpalau.com/en-uk/) The One Take Podcast in Partnership with SafeTraces (https://www.safetraces.com/) - Inbiot (https://www.inbiot.es/?utm_campaign=simon&utm_source=airqualitymatters&utm_me

This week, we dive into a groundbreaking study published in The Lancet Public Health titled Impact of Ultra Low Emission Zone on Lung Function Growth in Children in London: A Prospective Parallel Cohort Study, to explore a question that fundamentally challenges how we think about air pollution and child health: What if the single biggest barrier to protecting our children's respiratory health isn't our lack of scientific knowledge or technology—but our complete failure to recognise that when we clean up urban air pollution, children's developing lungs don't just stop getting worse, they actually catch up, proving that early life deficits can be restored and that clean air zones are not just environmental policy, but direct biological interventions with immediate, measurable health benefits?

This week, we sit down with Brian Renda, Programme Director for the Built Environment, and Victoria Slaughter, PPE Director at Blueprint Biosecurity, to explore a question that fundamentally challenges how we think about pandemic preparedness: What if the single biggest barrier to preventing the next pandemic isn't our lack of scientific knowledge or technology—but our complete failure to recognise that preparing for respiratory pandemics requires pathogen agnostic infrastructure deployed before emergencies strike, high quality respirators accessible to everyone who needs them, and a fundamental shift from accepting pandemics as inevitable to building systems where outbreaks are contained before they spiral into global catastrophe? Key Topics Discussed: Post COVID Reality and the Challenge of Sustained Preparedness: It is incredibly hard to plan and respond to threats that are not immediately in front of you. During the pandemic, the risk was visible and destructive. Now that attention has shifted, it is difficult to maintain focus on the next pandemic when we do not know if it will happen in one year, ten years, or a hundred years. Blueprint's role is to advance our overall state of readiness so that while we may not be able to stop outbreaks from happening, we can stop them from progressing into pandemics. History has shown we cannot predict when the next large event will be. We must be in preparation mode, but we cannot assume we have infinite time. The earlier preparations are done, the better protected we are. The Mask Versus Respirator Problem: So much of the confusion and misinformation during COVID stemmed from a lack of access to high quality products. There is an enormous difference between a mask and a respirator. A respirator filters the air a user breathes to a regulatory standard such as N95 or FFP3. A surgical mask or cloth mask does not. Surgical masks are designed to catch large particles and spit from a wearer's mouth in sterile environments. They are not designed to filter aerosols or airborne particles. The lack of any standard for cloth masks meant protection was wildly variable. Some offered almost no protection at all. When people are given high quality respirators with known efficacy, they do not have to wonder if something is protecting them. That changes everything. Stockpiling Strategy and the Lessons from COVID Waste: Respirators do expire, but the standards are extraordinarily high because these products are a person's last line of defense. Most respirators last longer than their expiration date, but manufacturers want to ensure even the final 0.1 percent that may no longer be good does not reach a person. Some respirators have shelf lives upwards of 20 years. That is very different from products that expire every three years. Smart stockpiling means filling warehouses with products that are ideal for long term storage and allowing for product rotation. Post COVID, many stockpiles are starting to disappear simply because products are expiring. The Built Environment Programme and Pathogen Agnostic Technologies: Blueprint focuses on interventions that are pathogen agnostic, work in occupied spaces, have promising safety and efficacy profiles, integrate into current operations without major disruption, and have the potential to be cost effective. Their formal programmes include Far UVC at 222 nanometers, which has much higher exposure limits than conventional 254 nanometer UVC because of its shorter penetration depth. Conventional upper room GUV, which has been studied since the 1930s yet is still barely used. And glycol vapors such as propylene glycol and triethylene glycol, which have been shown to deactivate aerosolized pathogens and are already mass manufactured for industrial processes. These could be deployed during emergencies with emitters in homes or businesses to add air treatment capacity with relatively little cost or infrastructure. Brian Renda https://www.linkedin.com/in/brian-renda-426

This week, we dive into a study published in Atmospheric Pollution Research titled Effects of Classroom Ventilation Management and User Activities on Indoor Air Quality in Madrid Primary Schools: A Two Year Field Study, to explore a question that fundamentally challenges how we think about school environments and indoor air quality: What if the single biggest barrier to delivering healthy classroom air isn't our lack of scientific knowledge or technology—but our complete failure to recognise that asking teachers to be human HVAC controllers, manually managing windows while teaching 30 active children in densely packed spaces, is a fragile, unstable and fundamentally unsustainable way to manage a building?