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. 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. 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.
|Journal||Journal of environmental radioactivity|
|State||Published - Jul 2014|
|Event||Environmental Radioactivity: Implications for Human and Environmental Health - Journal of Environmental Radioactivity and Plymouth University, Plymouth|
Duration: 4 Sep 2012 → 5 Sep 2012