Literature DB >> 17511698

Perceived risks from radiation and nuclear testing near Semipalatinsk, Kazakhstan: a comparison between physicians, scientists, and the public.

Kathleen L Purvis-Roberts1, Cynthia A Werner, Irene Frank.   

Abstract

Determining the difference in perception of risk between experts, or more educated professionals, and laypeople is important so that a potential hazard can be effectively communicated to the public. Many surveys have been conducted to better understand the difference between expert and public opinions, and often laypeople exhibit higher perceptions of risk to hazards in comparison to experts. This is especially true when health risk is due to radiation, nuclear power, and nuclear waste. This article focuses on one section of a risk perception survey given to two groups of individuals with a more specialized education (scientists and physicians) and laypeople (villagers) in the Semipalatinsk region of Kazakhstan. All of these groups live near the former Soviet nuclear test site. Originally, it was expected that the scientists and physicians would have similar perceptions of radiation risk, while the public perceptions would be higher, but this was not always the case. For example, when perceptions of risk pertain to the health impacts of nuclear testing or the dose-response nature of radiation exposure, the physicians tend to agree with the laypeople, not the scientists. The villagers are always the most risk-averse group, followed by the physicians and then the scientists. These differences are likely due to different frames of reference for each of the populations.

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17511698     DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2007.00882.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Risk Anal        ISSN: 0272-4332            Impact factor:   4.000


  6 in total

1.  Effect of the Fukushima nuclear accident on the risk perception of residents near a nuclear power plant in China.

Authors:  Lei Huang; Ying Zhou; Yuting Han; James K Hammitt; Jun Bi; Yang Liu
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2013-11-18       Impact factor: 11.205

2.  German wide cross sectional survey on health impacts of electromagnetic fields in the view of general practitioners.

Authors:  Bernd Kowall; Jürgen Breckenkamp; Kristina Heyer; Gabriele Berg-Beckhoff
Journal:  Int J Public Health       Date:  2009-12-18       Impact factor: 3.380

3.  Socio-psychological determinants of public acceptance of technologies: A review.

Authors:  Nidhi Gupta; Arnout R H Fischer; Lynn J Frewer
Journal:  Public Underst Sci       Date:  2011-03-01

4.  An Exploratory Analysis of Public Awareness and Perception of Ionizing Radiation and Guide to Public Health Practice in Vermont.

Authors:  Katherine M Evans; Jenna Bodmer; Bryce Edwards; James Levins; Amanda O'Meara; Merima Ruhotina; Richard Smith; Thomas Delaney; Razelle Hoffman-Contois; Linda Boccuzzo; Heidi Hales; Jan K Carney
Journal:  J Environ Public Health       Date:  2015-04-28

5.  How do the Chinese perceive ecological risk in freshwater lakes?

Authors:  Lei Huang; Yuting Han; Ying Zhou; Heinz Gutscher; Jun Bi
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-05-09       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  Are dietary reports in a case-control study on thyroid cancer biased by risk perception of Chernobyl fallout?

Authors:  C Xhaard; A Dumas; V Souchard; Y Ren; F Borson-Chazot; G Sassolas; C Schvartz; M Colonna; B Lacour; A S Wonoroff; M Velten; E Clero; S Maillard; E Marrer; L Bailly; E Mariné Barjoan; M Schlumberger; J Orgiazzi; E Adjadj; C Rubino; A Bouville; V Drozdovitch; F de Vathaire
Journal:  Rev Epidemiol Sante Publique       Date:  2017-06-01       Impact factor: 0.686

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.