Analysis of public perception about ionizing radiation

Abstract

This study assessed the level of public knowledge regarding ionizing radiation, the sources of information available to the public, and the preferred sources of education. A descriptive cross-sectional study was conducted in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. A 15-question survey was distributed to participants who attended a radiation awareness activity held for the public. Participants were asked to rank their confidence regarding ionizing radiation knowledge on a Likert-style scale. They also answered questions on their perception of risks, the source from which they received health information, and their preferred method of education. Only 3% of the 244 participants were “knowledgeable” about ionizing radiation. Nine percent stated they were confident about their ionizing radiation knowledge, and they were more knowledgeable than unconfident individuals (p = 0.041). Age, gender, and education level played no role in ionizing radiation knowledge (p = 0.746, p = 0.245, and p = 0.060, respectively). Among those who had undergone a medical imaging investigation during the past year, only 24% received an explanation of the risks and benefits. Participants overestimated the risk of nuclear plants, as this was selected as the source with the greatest risk to health, followed by medical sources. Most of those who had prior knowledge searched for the information on the internet (34%), however, more participants would prefer to receive education from their healthcare providers (36%).

Misconceptions Regarding the X- Ray Profession

“…Only 3% of the 244 participants "knew" about ionizing radiation. The participants over-estimated the risk of nuclear plants, since it was ranked as the source with the highest health risk, followed by medical sources (Nasr et al, 2019).…”

Untitled

“…Only 3% of the 244 participants "knew" about ionizing radiation. The participants over-estimated the risk of nuclear plants, since it was ranked as the source with the highest health risk, followed by medical sources (Nasr et al, 2019).…”

Plaidoyer pour un soutien fort et durable à la recherche en radiobiologie pour optimiser la radioprotection

“…Il est trop simple de penser ou de dire que cette situation résulte d'un contexte global de restriction budgétaire. C'est principalement parce que les perceptions au sujet des RI sont nombreuses et fort erronées : tout ce qui touche au nucléaire est considéré comme maléfique, la radioactivité naturelle n'est pas préocupante et les expositions médicales sont bénéfiques (Nasr et al, 2019). Rien de plus faux puisque les expositions humaines aux RI sont minimales/négligeables, les expositions au gaz naturel radon peuvent être significatives mais uniquement dans des pièces mal ventilées dans quelques régions géographiques et les expositions médicales sont de loin les plus importantes pour le nombre des personnes exposées (des millions) et les doses.…”

“…It is too simple to think or say that this situation results from a global context of scarce public ressources.This is mostly because the perceptions regarding ionizing radiations (IR) are numerous and quite wrong: whatever nuclear is considered to be the devil, natural radioactivity is not of a concern and medical exposures are beneficial (Nasr et al, 2019). Nothing more wrong since the exposures to IR of humans by nuclear activities are minimal/negligible, exposures to natural radon may be significant but only in poorly ventilated rooms in some geographic regions and medical exposures are by far the most important ones (in the number of exposed people (millions) and in doses).…”