Radiation risks and uncertainties: a scoping review to support communication and informed decision-making

Abstract

Although radiation protection is challenged by many uncertainties, there is no systematic study investigating the definitions and types of these uncertainties. To address this gap, in this paper we offer a scoping review to comprehensively analyse, for the first time, peer-reviewed scientific articles (n = 33) related to uncertainties in the following radiation exposure situations: nuclear emergencies, decommissioning of nuclear/radiological installations and long-term radiological exposure situations (e.g. naturally occurring radioactive materials). The results suggest that firstly, there is no agreement regarding definitions of uncertainty, which is mainly defined based on its sources, types or categories rather than by its meaning. Secondly, different actors are faced with different types of uncertainties. Uncertainties of the scientific community are mostly data and methodology-driven (e.g. dose-response relationships), those of the decision-makers are related to the likely consequences of decision options and public reactions, while laypeople’s uncertainties are mainly related to the trustworthiness of experts or the emotional potential of specific risk exposures. Furthermore, the majority of articles focus on the uncertainties of the scientific community, while those of the information receivers (i.e. decision-makers and laypeople) receive much less consideration. Finally, there was no difference in types of uncertainties across the different risk-related study areas analysed (radiation versus other risks). Based on these findings, we provide some preliminary recommendations regarding research on uncertainty related to radiation protection, as well as communication practices.

Lessons being learned from the Covid-19 pandemic for radiological emergencies and vice versa: report from expert discussions

“…It is important to be clear about uncertainties, what is known and what is not known, and create communication messages accordingly. However, this is rarely done in practice (Hoti et al 2020).…”

Review of engagement activities to promote awareness of radiation and its associated risk amongst the Japanese public before and after the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant accident

“…Although the understanding of uncertainty also differs among stakeholders (e.g. scientists, decision makers and the general public) [25], in addition to delivering an open, honest, consistent, consensusbased message in emergencies [26], the academic community should initiate preparedness for a variety of possible concerns or issues during normal circumstances. For instance, experts should pay more attention to the meaning of 100 mSv and share it more easily and accurately with the public.…”

Факторы Общественного Доверия Науке: Обзор Эмпирических Исследований

“…Обзоры, посвященные концептуализации и измерению доверия науке[Hendriks et al, 2016;Besley, Lee, Pressgrove, 2021]. Обзоры исследований установок по отношению к науке[Gardner, 1975; Osborne et al, 2003], отдельных проблем или областей знания[Besley, 2010;Hoti et al, 2020] и конкретных факторов[Allum et al, 2008; Bles et al, 2019].…”