Perceived incidence and importance of lay-ideas on ionizing radiation: Results of a delphi-study among radiation-experts (original) (raw)
Related papers
Ionizing Radiation as Perceived by the Population : The Good , the Bad and the Ugly
2004
The SCK•CEN, assisted by Research International, has organised in November 2002 an enquiry on the perception of risk and safety with a representative sample of the Belgian population. A Computer Assisted Personal Interview tackled several issues: general concerns related to safety and risks (societal – environmental – man-made vs. natural, etc.); role of experts; nuclear energy policy; countermeasures in nuclear emergency situations. A major finding is that the population has a very different perception of radiation such as medical Xrays (the good), radiation originating from nuclear facilities or radioactive waste (the bad) and radon (the ugly). At the occasion of the 40 anniversary of the Belgian Association for Radiation Protection, a selection of these questions has been presented also to the participants to an academic session dealing with risk perception. These participants were to a large extent professionals in radiation protection, with the addition of a group of students. ...
IONIZING RADIATION???UNDERSTANDING AND ACCEPTANCE
Health Physics, 2005
A questionnaire survey was conducted among three groups (totally 293 respondents of 400 questioned people) that mainly differ in socioeconomic status and professional exposure to ionizing radiation. Seventy-seven (26.3%) of the respondents were professionally exposed to radiation, 35 (11.9%) were medical doctors without professional exposure and 177 (68.4%) belonged to the general population group. Even if the sample can in no way be considered representative for Romanian population, some interesting conclusions can be taken. The level of anxiety toward radiation, expressed as a concernedness index, is significantly lower in people who are professionally exposed to radiation when compared to medical doctors and general population (0.81±0.94, 1.42±1.21 and 1.72±1.34 respectively, p<0.001). In a similar manner, concernedness index values varied with the education status, with lowest values among medical university graduates and highest among public school graduates (p<0.001). Both university-graduated groups significantly differ from the non-university groups (p<0.05). Knowledge about radiation and knowledge about emergency plans in nuclear accident/incident were also checked in relation with concernedness, the results confirming the hypothesis that better knowledge associates lower concernedness. The extent to which people accept the civil utilization of nuclear power is also related to concernedness and knowledge, significant associations having been found. The way people perceive the radiation risk differed between the three groups and the domain of use (nuclear energy and diagnostic x-ray) is associated with different levels of risk perception. The results suggest that a political decision in radiation matter requires a valid analysis of the public's understanding and acceptance. For that reason, it is important the radiological protection authorities develop new plans and materials for communicating with people, in order to improve knowledge upon ionizing radiation, irradiation risks and safety of nuclear energy employment for civil purposes.
A Comparative Study of Public Perception of Risks from a Variety of Radiation and Societal Risks
Anecdotal evidence suggests that public perception of radiation risks does not match current scientific opinion. For example, while there is considerable opposition to mobile phone transmitters, patients attending hospitals expect and demand X-Rays as part of their diagnosis and treatment. As another example, only a limited proportion of householders follow National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB) advice to protect their houses from radon. To judge whether public perception matches current scientific opinion, a sample of the general public were asked to fill in a written questionnaire to rank twenty different risks. These included the risks associated with medical X-rays, radon, nuclear discharges, mobile phones, smoking, recreational activities, travel, accidents at home and hazardous occupations. Sufficient replies were received to differentiate between results from schoolchildren, undergraduate and post-graduate students, the adult public and health workers. Although there w...
Analysis of public perception about ionizing radiation
Radioprotection
This study assessed the level of public knowledge regarding ionizing radiation, the sources of information available to the public, and the preferred sources of education. A descriptive cross-sectional study was conducted in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. A 15-question survey was distributed to participants who attended a radiation awareness activity held for the public. Participants were asked to rank their confidence regarding ionizing radiation knowledge on a Likert-style scale. They also answered questions on their perception of risks, the source from which they received health information, and their preferred method of education. Only 3% of the 244 participants were “knowledgeable” about ionizing radiation. Nine percent stated they were confident about their ionizing radiation knowledge, and they were more knowledgeable than unconfident individuals (p = 0.041). Age, gender, and education level played no role in ionizing radiation knowledge (p = 0.746, p = 0.245, and p = 0.060, respectiv...
Radiation risk perception: a discrepancy between the experts and the general population
Journal of Environmental Radioactivity, 2013
Determining the differences in the perception of risks between experts who are regularly exposed to radiation, and lay people provides important insights into how potential hazards may be effectively communicated to the public. In the present study we examined lay people's (N ¼ 1020) and experts' (N ¼ 332) perception of five different radiological risks: nuclear waste, medical x-rays, natural radiation, an accident at a nuclear installation in general, and the Fukushima accident in particular. In order to link risk perception with risk communication, media reporting about radiation risks is analysed using quantitative and qualitative content analyses. The results showed that experts perceive radiological risks differently from the general public. Experts' perception of medical X-rays and natural radiation is significantly higher than in general population, while for nuclear waste and an accident at a nuclear installation, experts have lower risk perception than the general population. In-depth research is conducted for a group of workers that received an effective dose higher than 0.5 mSv in the year before the study; for this group we identify predictors of risk perception. The results clearly show that mass media don't use the same language as technical experts in addressing radiological risks. The study demonstrates that the discrepancy in risk perception and the communication gap between the experts and the general population presents a big challenge in understanding each other.
Radiation a new paradigm...Societal impacts
Mutation research, 2010
Latency is associated with the time lag it takes for the health effects resulting from exposure to ionising radiation to show up. However, the term latency can also be applied to the time it takes for a policy to be implemented. This length of time has been suggested as broadly 40-year process. Given that radioactivity was identified and named in 1896, three paradigms are identified and examined from 1896 to 2016 and the criteria for a 4th paradigm suggested for the period 2017-2056. The review examines the changes that have taken place in scientific understanding and in public trust, a few key developments and the associated establishment of the related organisational infrastructure designed to collate and assess the evidence.
Virtually no scientific subject of the twentieth century has as political a his tory as radiation. In the case of atomic technology it is overt. Raised to a major project by the state and industry, radiation and its imponderables soon stood at the core of social conflicts. It was even earlier, however, that mastery over radiation acquired the character of a key technology. Interest in developing radiation technology and the requisite industrial capacities united disparate actors since the 1920s at the latest. They included physicians, scientists, technicians, and representatives of industry, politics, and not least, science policy. Radiation was a field of research cutting straight across disciplinary boundaries, encompassing physics, chemistry, medicine, pharmacology, biology, as well as such boundary fields as meteorology. Following the tracks of radiation means, above all, describing such links without which the dynamics of a material culture in technology cannot be explained.1 This kind of approach comprehends the relationship between research and research policy not in the first place as an institutional problem. It rather studies the practices of diverse actors.