Literature DB >> 23683940

Radiation risk perception: a discrepancy between the experts and the general population.

Tanja Perko1.   

Abstract

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 = 1020) and experts' (N = 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.
Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Media; Natural radiation; Nuclear accident; Nuclear waste; Radiological risk perception; X-rays

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23683940     DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvrad.2013.04.005

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Environ Radioact        ISSN: 0265-931X            Impact factor:   2.674


  17 in total

Review 1.  Risk Communication Strategies: Lessons Learned from Previous Disasters with a Focus on the Fukushima Radiation Accident.

Authors:  Erik R Svendsen; Ichiro Yamaguchi; Toshihide Tsuda; Jean Remy Davee Guimaraes; Martin Tondel
Journal:  Curr Environ Health Rep       Date:  2016-12

2.  The Hiroshima/Nagasaki Survivor Studies: Discrepancies Between Results and General Perception.

Authors:  Bertrand R Jordan
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2016-08       Impact factor: 4.562

3.  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

4.  Cohort study of Western Australia computed tomography utilisation patterns and their policy implications.

Authors:  David A J Gibson; Rachael E Moorin; C D'Arcy J Holman
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2014-11-05       Impact factor: 2.655

Review 5.  The Radiation Problem and Its Solution from a Health Communication Perspective.

Authors:  Yungwook Kim
Journal:  J Korean Med Sci       Date:  2016-01-29       Impact factor: 2.153

6.  Perception of low dose radiation risks among radiation researchers in Korea.

Authors:  Ki Moon Seong; TaeWoo Kwon; Songwon Seo; Dalnim Lee; Sunhoo Park; Young Woo Jin; Seung-Sook Lee
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-02-06       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  Current State and Problems of Radiation Risk Communication: Based on the Results of a 2012 Whole Village Survey.

Authors:  Yujiro Kuroda
Journal:  PLoS Curr       Date:  2017-02-24

8.  IMPORTANCE OF ENGAGING IN DIALOGUE WITH THE POPULATION AFTER A NUCLEAR ACCIDENT.

Authors:  Hans Vanmarcke
Journal:  Radiat Prot Dosimetry       Date:  2017-04-01       Impact factor: 0.972

9.  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

10.  Non-cancer morbidity among Estonian Chernobyl cleanup workers: a register-based cohort study.

Authors:  Kaja Rahu; Evelyn J Bromet; Timo Hakulinen; Anssi Auvinen; Anneli Uusküla; Mati Rahu
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2014-05-14       Impact factor: 2.692

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.