Atomic Energy

, Volume 125, Issue 4, pp 265–268 | Cite as

Radiation Risk and Features of Its Perception

  • V. A. Panteleev
  • M. D. Segal’
  • A. V. Simonov

The public perception of radiation risk, which intensified after the accident at the Fukushima NPP (Japan), is examined. Now not only is it necessary to increase the safety of nuclear power but serious attention must be devoted to the public response to radiation risk. Analysis of sociological studies shows that the information factor plays a decisive role in the intensification of the perception of radiation risk via the creation of a negative social stereotype in respect to nuclear power as a whole. It is proposed that the communication approach to risk assessment and interpretation when informing the public be closely tied to a level-3 probabilistic safety analysis of objects using atomic energy.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Y. Kim, M. Kim, and W. Kim, “Effect of the Fukushima nuclear disaster on global public acceptance of nuclear energy,” Energy Policy, 61, 822–828 (2013).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Energy Outlook for the World and Russia to 2040, INEI RAN, Moscow (2014).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    International Status and Prospects for Nuclear Power 2014: Rep. by the Director General of the IAEA, in: 58th IAEA General Conf. Documents, 2014, GC(58)/INF/6.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    “Declaration of the Russian Scientific Society for Risk Analysis ‘On Maximum Permissible Risk Levels’ (explanatory note),” Probl. Analiza Riska, 3, No. 2, 163–168 (2006).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    B. Drottz-Sjoberg and L. Sjoberg, “The perception of risks of technology,” in: Risks in Technological Systems (2010), pp. 255–273.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    R. Kasperson, “The social amplification of risk – progress in developing an integrative framework,” in: Social Theories of Risk (1992), pp. 153–178.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    J. Busby and S. Onggo, “Managing the social amplification of risk: a simulation of interacting actors,” J. Oper. Res. Soc., 64, No. 5, 638–653 (2013).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    V. A. Puchkov and L.A. Bolshov (eds), The Chernobyl Accident 30 Years: Results and Prospects for Overcoming Its Consequences in Russia, Moscow (2017).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    The Fukushima Daiichi Accident: Rep. by the Director General of the IAEA, in: 59th IAEA General Conf. Documents, 2015, GC(59)/14.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Y. Tomkiv, T. Perko, D. Oughton, et al., “How did media present the radiation risks after the Fukushima accident: a content analysis of newspapers in Europe,” J. Radiolog. Protect., 36, No. 2, 64–81 (2016).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    N. Nakaya, T. Nakamura, N. Tsuchiya, et al., “Prospect of future housing and risk of psychological distress at 1 year after an earthquake disaster,” Psych. Clinic. Neurosci., 70, No. 4, 182–189 (2016).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    P. Allisy-Roberts, C. Turcanu, and F. Hardeman, “First International Conference on Risk Perception, Communication and Ethics of Exposures to Ionizing Radiation (RICOMET), special section editorial,” J. Radiolog. Protect., 36, No. 2, 11–14 (2016).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • V. A. Panteleev
    • 1
  • M. D. Segal’
    • 1
  • A. V. Simonov
    • 1
  1. 1.Nuclear Safety InstituteRussian Academy of Sciences (IBRAE RAS)MoscowRussia

Personalised recommendations