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...