For far too long, we scientists and engineers have allowed unsubstantiated fear of low-level radiation (LLR) among the public to prevail. And we have failed! Why? We propose two main reasons for this failure: (1) Our profession is divided — International agencies such as ICRP still claim radiation can be dangerous down to trivial levels whereas the science claims precisely the opposite. As such we can’t blame the public when they get mixed messages. (2) Even when the truth about safe low-level radiation is explained to the public, decisions are made via emotions (stimulated by fear), not facts. We propose the path forward be guided by new medically validated psychological findings that likely have significant bearing on the two issues noted above. This new psychological insight notes that our brains are wired in a predictive mode, rather than a reaction mode. Hence, when we encounter new information, we deal with it within a framework that fits with past experience. If such new information is in conflict with this expectation, it is highly suspect and likely discarded as biased input. We see this reflected even in our highly respected international organizations such ICRP. The scientists occupying major roles in such institutions are certainly well-meaning, world-class scientists. But is it possible that they enter these roles with a background experience suggesting radiation may always be harmful — and they look for ways to confirm their past beliefs? Even if they find new scientific evidence that LLR is not harmful (and possibly even beneficial) they want to err on the conservative side. But is such a stance really conservative — when we note that there was not a single death at Fukushima due to radiation? Rather, it was the fear of radiation caused by the prevailing assumption that there is no threshold for radiation damage. So, Challenge #1 in our efforts to eliminate fear of LLR is the step to achieve a unified international message, based on science, not to fear LLR. Challenge #2 is to then convey this message to skeptics, recognizing that is emotion, not facts, that will ultimately change minds.
Munn et al. (Mon,) studied this question.