Abstract

The general public's perception of the risks of a radiation accident is very different from that of experts. While both groups estimate the likelihood of a serious accident taking place to be very small, many civilians, unlike the experts, expect a nuclear accident to cause large numbers of fatalities and deformities, even if takes place far away. This difference in perception occurs because the general public's risk judgements are based on different factors than those considered by the experts, who rely mainly on information of a technical nature. For effective communication about radiation risks, it is important to adapt any information provided to conform more closely to what people already know and think.

Four factors influence the way the public perceives risk. First, there is the extent to which the risk is unknown and dreaded. When people are not familiar with a risk and are afraid of it, they are more likely to perceive it as being large. Efforts made to communicate the risks of radiation should, therefore, be aimed at enhancing knowledge amongst the general public about, for instance, the functioning of nuclear installations.

Second, people construct a mental 'picture' (knowledge, ideas and images) of the risks of a nuclear accident based on their personal circumstances and experience. By comparing this picture with that of radiation experts, one can find out where the largest differences exist; communication can then be aimed specifically at these subjects. A previous comparison of mental pictures showed that what the Dutch general public really needed was information on what measures they could take if a radiation-related accident occurred, and the location of the nuclear installations.

A third factor determining the perception of risk is the attitude that the public holds of a particular activity. This attitude is more positive when people experience benefits associated with it and have confidence in regulatory and supervisory bodies. In order to maintain trust in these institutions, their communication should be transparent and factual. One particular challenge is that scientific information is often open to multiple interpretations, not necessarily in line with the institution's own.

Finally, signals which originate in the individual's social environment are also an important factor. These might be signals people pick up from friends or social media. Thus it is important for institutions to use these social media channels to communicate with the public as long as they ensure that they have a well-designed social media strategy which takes into account what people already think and know; they also need to be fully versed in all the challenges of social media use.The public perception of radiation risks: implications for communicating to the public.