Radiation: Underlying Concern
Ann S. Bisconti, PhD
January 2023
Say the word, “radiation,” and images pop into the imagination of monsters or superheroes—something magical and mythical. The origins of these images can be traced back to 19th century science fiction, says Spencer Weart, long-time Director of the Center for History of Physics at the American Institute of Physics. His influential book, Nuclear Fear: History of Images,[1] documented what we learned from surveys and focus groups: concerns about radiation underpin public fears about nuclear energy.
We asked key questions in several national surveys, but we needed a deep dive into public attitudes toward radiation and how to talk about the topic. We took on the topic in-depth in 1991 and following years, most recently in October 2022.
For the seminal 1991 project for communicating about radiation, I gathered a top-notch team. Ralph Anderson, Senior Health Physicist for USCEA and (later) NEI became my go-to expert on all things associated with radiation. He was joined by Robert Livingston, a writer for NEI publications with a long career in nuclear energy, in helping to develop hypotheses and messages for research. As always, it was important to assure accuracy of any statements in the research because the statements could be used by others in the future. Rounding out the team, I chose Gallup for the data collection. I needed a company that could conduct in-person interviews with a national sample of the public. I wanted interviewees to be able to read and comment on materials, and I also wanted the sample to be robust. The first study was based on a national sample of 1,020 adults aged 18 and older.
The findings discussed here are the totality of our research before, after, and including this seminal study. Radiation may lend itself to fearful imagery because it is not perceptible by the senses. You can’t see it, touch it, hear it, or smell it. But you can measure it. That ability to measure radiation from nuclear energy is the key to effective communication.
Public Perceptions of Radiation
Public perceptions of radiation and radiation technologies are largely based on images of the atomic bomb. The 1991 study began by asking: “When you hear the word ‘radiation,’ what are some of the things that come to mind.” This question was open-ended with no responses suggested. A majority of 60 percent mentioned negative ideas:
Body harm, sickness, cancer, burns, death—36 percent
Destruction—21 percent
Nuclear war, bombs, aggression, fallout—21 percent
Frightened, stay away—5 percent
Radiation imagery was not limited to monsters. Significant numbers associated radiation in a positive or neutral way:
Medical benefits—33 percent
Electricity, energy—18 percent
Heat—7 percent
Microwaves—7 percent
Another 8 percent mentioned radiation in nature, the sun, or radon.
A closer look at the demographics found that only one group associated radiation with more favorable than unfavorable ideas: men college graduates.
The survey also asked respondents to “name as many beneficial uses of radiation as you can think of.” Most respondents (90 percent) could name some benefit. Medical benefits were mentioned most; only one-fourth mentioned nuclear energy:
Cancer treatment—60 percent
X-rays—47 percent
Other medical applications—24 percent
Nuclear power/energy—24 percent (including 34 percent of men but just 14 percent of women)
Microwaves—7 percent
At least in 1991, other important uses of radiation technologies such as in science and industry and space exploration were not well known. Focus group studies over the years show very little public knowledge of radiation uses beyond medical diagnosis and treatment.
Nuclear power plants were closely associated with radiation in the 1991 study. Respondents were given a set of shuffled cards on which were written different ways that a person could receive radiation. These included getting a chest X-ray, flying from NY to LA, fertilizing your lawn in spring and fall, living next to a coal plant for a year, living next to a geothermal plant for a year, and living next to a nuclear energy plant for a year. Respondents were asked to rank the sources “from the way that a person would probably receive the most radiation to the way a person would probably receive the least radiation.”
The source ranked first, by far, was living next to a nuclear power plant for a year; 58 percent chose that as the way a person would probably receive the most radiation, and 76 percent ranked it either first or second. And yet, of all the ways listed on these cards, living next to a nuclear power plant for a year was the way that a person would receive the least radiation.[2]
Fundamental Beliefs Influence Receptivity to Messages
We measured public beliefs about radiation in national public opinion surveys in 1990, 2001, 2008, and October 2022. All were with nationally representative samples of 1,000.
To measure four fundamental beliefs, respondents were asked, “I’m going to read you some statements about radiation, and for each one, I’d like you to tell me whether it is true or false.” Responses below are shown in percentages. As of 2022, there were no improvements in knowledge of the facts. In fact, the survey found the public less convinced and more uncertain than in previous years. Why? One could point to the radiation from the Fukushima plant, the recent media concerns about potential radiation releases from the Russian capture and mismanagement of the Zaporizhzhia plant in Ukraine. One could also note that many nuclear plant energy education centers that included information about radiation have closed.
Two beliefs about radiation create barriers to communications:
1. Any amount of radiation is harmful. About half the public believes that any amount of radiation is harmful. Even though radiation is a part of nature, it is not necessarily seen as a good thing. Some members of the public equate radiation with pollution.
2. Radiation from nuclear energy is more harmful than the same amount of radiation from the sun. Half the public believes that radiation from nuclear power plants is more harmful than the same amount of radiation from the sun. Members of the public often find that comparing the amounts of radiation from manmade and natural sources is like comparing apples and oranges.
Two beliefs about radiation can make communications more credible:
1. We all receive radiation every day from the sun and the earth. Most Americans understand that we receive radiation from nature, and that radiation is all around us. That point is useful to start the conversation because it gives context and establishes credibility, but it is not new and, therefore, not by itself persuasive. The percentage answering true dropped in 2022, and a larger-than-usual percentage did not know.
2. Radiation is easily detected and measured. A majority believes that radiation is easily detected and measured. Research finds that it helps to explain and show how radiation is detected, measured, and controlled. These facts are reassuring.
Best Messages Communicate Controls and Beneficial Uses
Scientists like to talk about radiation from nuclear power plants using risk comparisons because these comparisons make so much sense to them. Instead, research shows that many members of the public put up barriers to favorite risk comparisons. Comparisons of radiation from nuclear power plants with radiation from cross-country flights, granite buildings, and other activities or objects are diminished by the idea that radiation from man-made sources, such as nuclear technologies, is more harmful than the same amount of radiation from nature.
Instead, members of the public are consistently more impressed with learning how radiation is easily measured, contained, and used. These messages are the next best thing to giving people a Geiger counter to hold in their hand.
Our 2022 national public opinion survey tested eight messages about radiation from nuclear power plants on two dimensions:
Emotional appeal: half the sample rated the messages on whether they were very reassuring, somewhat reassuring, not too reassuring, or not at all reassuring.
Rational appeal: the other half sample rated the messages on whether they were excellent, good, fair, or poor points to make to put radiation from nuclear power plants in perspective.
Regardless of whether the messages were framed as emotional or rational appeals, the best points communicated about how radiation is controlled and about the many beneficial uses of nuclear technologies. (See Table 1) Those were the best messages for men and women and for different generations (Table 2).
Talking about beneficial uses makes nuclear technologies more familiar and less threatening. Reminders of how radiation is used in medical and industrial technologies conveys that we know how to control these technologies.
Analogies were least effective. That was true in all the surveys. The most effective analogy is with an X-ray because it is an apples-to-apples comparison; both nuclear power plants and X-rays emit man-made radiation. Moreover, X-rays are thought to be beneficial and controlled.
Being told that one gets more radiation from another source such as a coal plant does not explain how the nuclear power plant radiation is controlled, measured, and contained so that the public is protected.
Generation Z responded more favorably than others to the comparison of radiation from airplane travel. The sample is small (just 90 respondents), but their unique thinking could be a sign of change.
Table 1
Messages about Radiation from Nuclear Power Plants Tested on Emotional and Rational Dimensions, and Most Convincing (2022)
Table 2
Demographics: Most Convincing Messages (2022) (%)
Persistent Misperceptions
The 2022 survey asked at the beginning and end of the interview about the likelihood that people living near a nuclear power plant are exposed to harmful levels of radiation.
At the beginning of the survey, two-thirds of respondents (64 percent) believed that harmful exposure was likely.
At the end of the survey, half thought that harmful exposure was likely. That’s an improvement but hardly the shift one would hope for.
The association of radiation with nuclear power plants is so strong that it persists with many people, even after they see persuasive messages. In fact, after reading the messages, 78 percent rated the likelihood of harmful radiation exposure greater than 2 (on a 1-7 scale).
Perceptions that Plant Neighbors are Exposed to Harmful Levels of Radiation: Pre- and Post-Messages (2022)
How likely would you say it is that people living near a nuclear power plant are exposed to harmful levels of radiation? The more likely you think it is, the higher the number you would give it. [1-7]
Conclusion
Radiation remains an area in which words alone are helpful but not sufficient, and the research shows that more education is needed. Get out the Geiger counters! Show pictures and models that demonstrate containment and control. More research is needed too. Test ways to show radiation measurements, including safe levels. Test perceived value of the many ways that radiation technologies are used to benefit society. Continue to look for potential signs of change in the perspective of younger generations.
[1] Weart, Spencer R. Nuclear Fear: A History of Images. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1989.
[2] References are listed in the USCEA publication, Communicating with the Public about Radiation by Ann S. Bisconti, PhD and Robert L. Livingston. They include data compiled by the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP), the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), and the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR).
© Ann Stouffer Bisconti, 2023.