Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

NNadir

(35,304 posts)
Wed Feb 26, 2025, 01:33 AM Feb 26

Radiophobia: Useful concept, or ostracising term?

I came across this paper in my files when downloading a couple of books on the subject of health and radiation, (harm vs hormesis) including one of my personal bête noire, the unjustified and uncritical acceptance of the linear no threshold (LNT) hypothesis:

John C.H. Lindberg, Denali Archer, Radiophobia: Useful concept, or ostracising term?, Progress in Nuclear Energy, Volume 149, 2022, 104280.

It is well established that fear of radiation killed more peopole at the Fukushima event than the radiation releases did, (effectively zero or close to zero) most dramatically with the unwise decision to shut nuclear plants and to replace them with dangerous fossil fuel plants (which kill people whenever they operate normally), not only in Japan, where the shutdowns were temporary, but also in Germany, where people are still being killed as of today from coal waste, aka air pollution and extreme global heating.

The paper is a more interesting and sober discussion of the topic than I would be inclined to make, and so I'll excerpt it's introduction:

1. Introduction

Suicides, abortions, stigmatisation, depression, anxiety, bullying – the consequences of radiophobia are significant and can be severe. The fear of radiation is well documented, as are its impacts. Despite the fact radiophobia as a phenomenon has been clearly observed since the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, very little progress towards resolving it has been made. This became especially evident during and following the Fukushima Daiichi accident in 2011, highlighting a systemic failure to get to grasp with the concept of radiophobia, and its psychological roots. To most observers of the nuclear debates over the decades, radiophobia is almost like an old friend. Indeed, as one travels through the roughly 125 years of human interactions with ionising radiation, the footprints, and the shadows of radiophobia are abundant. It is well established that there exists a major risk perception gap as far as radiation is concerned, both between subject matter experts and the public (both relating to nuclear power accidents and different radiation sources) (Slovic, 1987, 1996; Litmanen, 1996; Fox-Glassman and Weber, 2016; Palfreman, 2006; Allen, 1996; North, 1999) but also between different professions (e.g. physicists, engineers and chemists ranking nuclear risks significantly lower than biologists or biomedical researchers) (Barke and Jenkins-Smith, 1993). Whilst scientific knowledge about the health effects of radiation exposure has grown considerably since its discovery in 1895, the perception gap remains. Despite considerable efforts having been dedicated to attempt to alleviate public concerns about any potential health consequences of exposure, it is evident that this has not been successful. Indeed, it is rather remarkable that more than 125 years of public awareness of radiation has not translated into any major shifts in its risk perception profile. It can be argued that at its most fundamental, radiophobia is the offspring of this gap, fuelled by the invisibility of radiation which, inherently, makes it malleable to influences, both internal and external. To date, the different factors that does give rise to, and reinforce, radiophobia have only been tangentially explored, resulting in a weak conceptualisation of radiophobia. In turn, this has had a negative impacts on how this risk perception discrepancy is handled, let alone addressed.

Furthermore, radiophobia as a term has acquired a troubling guise, having been used extensively in debates pertaining to the use of nuclear technologies as a shorthand to dismiss concerns or fears raised by the public. Whilst the considerable harm caused by radiophobia is well established, the sociopsychological nature of these consequences has often resulted in them being dismissed as emotional and irrational. This theme of “irrationality” is deeply rooted within parts of the nuclear community, and has for decades exerted considerable influence over the overall engagement with the general public. Paul Slovic, the pioneer psychologist who laid much of the groundwork in the risk perception literature, aptly summarised how the nuclear industry historically has “… express[ed] great consternation and antagonism toward a public they view as “ignorant”, “radiophobic” or “irrational"” (Slovic et al., 2000). Indeed, as noted by Roeser (2011), “there seems to be one constant factor in the [nuclear] debate … proponents call opponents badly informed, emotional, and irrational …” (Roeser, 2011). This highlights not only a poor understanding amongst the nuclear industry of the nature of the relationship that most humans have with radiation, but also the underlying psychosocial processes that underpins this relationship.

This paper, therefore, seeks to address some of these shortcomings, by offering a holistic reappraisal of radiophobia as a concept, and the underlying processes that has made humanity's relationship with radiation largely unique amongst the many carcinogens that exists, as well as an assessment as to whether radiophobia can still be used constructively. However, in order for such an assessment to be conducted, radiophobia must be properly defined...


Interesting bit, on the psychology of what, given the collapse of the planetary atmosphere which I personally attribute to fear of nuclear power, which I would certainly characterize as irrational to the point of pernicious, even if the author is more generous than I'm inclined to be.
Latest Discussions»Culture Forums»Science»Radiophobia: Useful conce...