DOI 10.1393/ncc/i2020-20150-0
Colloquia: SIRR 2020
Environmental radiation and risk perception: A survey in the
Campania region (Southern Italy)
G. La Verde(1)(2)(3), C. Longobardi(4)(∗), T. Fronzino(4),
M. La Commara(1)(2), V. D’Avino(1), F. Coppola(5) and M. Pugliese(1)(3)
(1) National Institute of Nuclear Physics, Section of Naples - Naples, Italy (2) Department of Pharmacy, University of Naples Federico II - Naples, Italy
(3) Department of Physics “E. Pancini”, University of Naples Federico II - Naples, Italy (4) Department of Electrical Engineering and Information Technologies, University of Naples
Federico II - Naples, Italy
(5) Center for Advanced Metrological Services, University of Naples Federico II - Naples, Italy
received 25 January 2021
Summary. — A study about the risk perception from exposure to environmental radiation, in particular to radon gas, through an online survey has been carried out. The rationale has been the definition of the concepts of risk and danger and the analysis of the European and Italian legislative context regarding information on exposure to ionizing radiation. Two test populations were involved: general and student population. The results showed that the perceived risk is different from the real risk and that the knowledge of the issue is related to the level of education and the cultural background. Furthermore, the influence of dissemination activities and educational projects with high schools on the level of knowledge of gas radon is evident.
1. – Introduction
The definitions of risk and danger have been widely discussed over the years: they are different but interconnected concepts and often confused in the common use by a non-specialist public [1-6]. Risk and danger have been defined by the International Organization for Standardization in ISO Guide 73 [7] and ISO 31000 [8]. In Italy, this distinction was expressed by the national certification body with UNI 11230 [9] and reaffirmed in the Consolidated Law on the protection of health and safety in workplaces (Legislative Decree 81/08) [10].
(∗) Corresponding author. E-mail: chiara.longobardi@studenti.unina.it
There are some studies and theories on risk perception [11, 12]. Corvello et al. laid the foundations for an effective risk communication, underlining the connection between risk perception and its communication [13]. For the U.S. National Research Council
Committee on Risk Perception and Communications Risk, communication is a process
that cannot be limited to disseminating correct information on the risk, but it should create trust and dialogue between those who must manage the risk and those who are exposed to it [14]. People are inclined to underestimate or overestimate the risks, basing their assessment not on the calculation of the possible number of deaths, injuries or damage to the environment and goods, but on the perceived presence of specific features of risk situations. Some perceived properties of the source of risk are familiarity with the topic, personal control, fearfulness [15-18]. In general, population considers risks that have been imposed against their will more unacceptable than risks that are consciously assumed and managed directly by the individual. A risk is perceived as less serious when you think you can personally control it and directly influence its outcomes.
One of the dangers that are of interest in the scientific world concerns the environ-mental ionizing radiations from which people cannot escape. Particularly relevant is the study of the risk assessment of the health effects associated with exposures to low doses of ionizing radiation deriving from sources of natural origin.
Regarding the scope of this work, the importance of radiological risk and its perception is confirmed by the evolution of the regulatory framework on the subject. Over time, the issue of informing the population about radiological risk has assumed an increasingly significant role [19, 20]. In 2002 the Italian National Radon Plan [21] (PNR) highlighted the need to inform the general population about the radiological risk from exposure to indoor radon gas, with an entire chapter (chapter VI) dedicated to information and training.
At European level the Directive 2013/59 EURATOM [22], establishes the basic safety standards (BSS) relating to protection from exposure to ionizing radiation, with the aim to update and unify legislation on radiation protection. The directive endorses the rec-ommendations of the ICRP n. 103 of 2007 [23]. In Italy, while pending the transposition of the EURATOM Directive 2013/59 to the national level, some regions have proceeded with the enactment of regional laws; an example is Campania with Regional Law n.13 of 8 July 2019 [24]. The importance of informing the population is reaffirmed by “radon desks” (Art. 7 paragraph 3) to meet every citizen’s needs regarding the gas radon topic: information, measurement and risk assessment services.
However, in 2020 the European directive was implemented at the national level with Legislative Decree n. 101/2020 [25] that introduces some novelties in the field of pre-vention and protection from ionizing radiation. The new Legislative Decree does not neglect the issues of information and awareness campaigns on the radon issue. Accord-ing to Art. 14, in fact, the Ministries of Health and Labor and Social Policies, National Inspectorate for Nuclear Safety and Radiation Protection (ISIN), National Institute of Health (ISS) and the National Institute for Insurance against Accidents at Work (IN-AIL), with Regions and Autonomous Provinces of Trento and Bolzano will have to share information on actual levels of exposure to radon indoors and the relative health risks. Furthermore, they will have to disseminate information on the importance of carrying out measurements of the average concentration of annual activity of radon gas and on the technical means available to reduce its concentration. Finally, ISS will conduct specific epidemiological studies and research on the effects of exposure to radon concentrations on human health, in collaboration with the National Health System.
TableI. – Survey on the perception of radiological risk.
Gender Age
female male <18 19–30 31–50 >50
Educational qualification What sources of radiation are we most exposed to ? middle high degree postgraduate natural origin artificial origin
school school degree
Sort the sources in ascending order, from the least risky to the riskiest cosmic radiodiagnostics electromagnetic terrestriac nuclear
rays field radiation industry
2. – Methods
Although the world average of the effective dose of radioactivity absorbed by a human being due to the natural background is 2.4 mSv/year [26], the awareness of the related risk among the general population is still very low. Therefore, an investigation on this topic was carried out to obtain a snapshot of the level of awareness and knowledge of different sources of radiation and the perceived risk. In order to do that a multiple-choice questionnaire was drafted (table I).
Another survey related the cultural background and the perception of risk. For this reason, students have been taken as a representative survey sample of a targeted pop-ulation: 1000 high school and 1000 university students have been asked about the gas radon and its effects on health (table II and table III).
3. – Results and discussion
The first questionnaire on the perception of radiation risk, addressed to 1000 indi-viduals of the general population, showed that 61% of the population consider the main source of radiation exposure to be of artificial origin (fig. 1).
This seems to confirm the theory that natural sources are considered less risky than artificial ones. Furthermore, a close correlation emerged between the answers and the
TableII. – Survey about gas radon for high-school students.
Gender Grade
female male I II III IV V
Do you know If yes, how did you find out ? Do you know the health
what radon is ? effects of radon ?
TableIII. – Survey about gas radon for university students.
Gender Age Degree course
female male 18–25 25–30 >30
Do you know If yes, how did you find out ? Do you know the
what radon is ? health effects of radon ?
yes no newspapers/web/tv events projects lectures yes no
Fig. 1. – Answer to the question: what sources of radiation are we most exposed to?
educational background (fig. 2).
The second part of the questionnaire asks for a ranking of risk from the least risky (position 1) to the riskiest source of radiations (position 5) as shown in table IV. Cosmic rays and terrestrial radiation have been ranked as the least risky, while the nuclear industry was considered the riskiest. Comparing these results with the ranking drawn up according to the UNSCEAR 2008 [26], the discrepancy between the risk perception and the real risk is evident.
Fig. 2. – Answer by qualification to the question: which sources of radiation are we most exposed to?
TableIV. – Comparison between population’s ranking and UNSCEAR 2008 ranking.
Population ranking UNSCEAR 2008 ranking
1) cosmic rays 1) electromagnetic pollution (non-ionizing radiation) 2) terrestrial radiation 2) nuclear industry (contribution 0.0001 mSv/year) 3) radiodignostics 3) cosmic rays (contribution 0.4 mSv/year) 4) electromagnetic field 4) radiodiagnostics (contribution 1 mSv/year) 5) nuclear industry 5) terrestrial radiation (contribution 2.0 mSv/year)
Fig. 3. – Knowledge of radon gas (a) and knowledge of the health effects of radon gas (b) among students.
The data demonstrate the empirical consideration according to which what is man-made or most broadly discussed by media is considered riskier, although they are more controllable than natural phenomena.
Considering the relation between awareness and educational qualification (fig. 2) and having established that the greatest contribution to background environmental radiation is from radon gas, a second questionnaire concerning the topic of radon was conducted on 1000 high-school and 1000 university students.
More than half of high-school and university students do not know radon gas (fig. 3(a)), but among those who know it, 72% of high-school and 57% of university students are also aware of its effects on health (fig. 3(b)).
The development, by universities and research institutes, of training projects with the involvement of local schools can make an important contribution to the increasing of the public awareness of the radon risk [27, 28], newspapers and television can also play an important role to reach this goal. For university students, analyzing the data in relation to the type of degree course, it is clear that the topic is addressed only in some degree
Fig. 4. – Knowledge of radon gas by degree course.
Fig. 5. – Sources from which the radon issue was learned by high-school students (a) and university students (b).
courses with a clear difference between scientific and humanistic ones (fig. 4).
The analysis of the information sources shows that high-school students learned about the topic mostly through newspapers, web and TV, probably encouraged by school projects [29-31] while 77% of university students learned about the topic almost ex-clusively through university lectures (fig. 5).
4. – Conclusions
The project highlighted the gap between reality and the perception of the risk as-sociated with exposure to radiation. Awareness seems to be related to the degree of knowledge on the topic and the educational background. It is necessary to act with targeted information campaigns in order to disseminate adequate information about the issue of radiation and radon gas among the public. Finally, it would be advisable to carry out an extensive survey throughout the national territory before and after information campaigns, also considering the provisions of the regulative framework.
REFERENCES
[1] Rosa E. A., J. Risk Res., 1 (1998) 15.
[2] Knight F. H., Risk, Uncertainty and Profit (Houghton Mifflin Company) 1921. [3] Slovic P., Risk Anal., 19 (1999) 689.
[4] Aven T. et al., J. Risk Res., 12 (2009) 1. [5] Aven T. et al., J. Risk Res., 13 (2010) 255.
[6] Bec U., La societ`a del Rischio. Verso una Seconda Modernit`a (Carocci Editore) 2013. [7] ISO Guide 73:2009, Risk management, Vocabulary.
[8] ISO 31000:2018 Risk management, Guidelines. [9] UNI 11230:2007 Gestione del rischio, Vocabolario.
[10] Decreto Legislativo n.81 del 9 aprile 2008 (GU n. 101 del 30 aprile 2008, Suppl. Ordinario n. 108).
[11] Perko T., J. Environ. Radioact., 133 (2014) 86. [12] Ferrer R. et al., Curr. Opin. Psychol., 5 (2015) 85.
[13] Corvello V. T. et al., Seven Cardinal Rules for Risk Communication (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington D.C.) 1988.
[14] National Research Council, Improving Risk Communication (The National Academies Press) 1989.
[15] Slovic P., Peters E., Finucane M. L. and MacGregor D. G., Health Psychol., 24 (2005) S35.
[16] Covello V. T., Environmental Impact Assessment, Technology Assessment, and Risk Analysis (Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg) 1985, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-70634-9 1.
[17] Fischhoff B. et al., Policy Sci., 9 (1978) 127.
[18] Slovic P. and Weber E. U., Perception of Risk Posed by Extreme Events, presented at the conference Risk Management strategies in an Uncertain World, Palisades, New York, 12–13 April 2002.
[19] Decreto Legislativo 17 marzo 1995 n. 230 (GU Serie Generale del 13/06/1995, Suppl. Ordinario n. 74).
[20] Decreto Legislativo 26 maggio 2000, n. 241 (GU Serie Generale del 31/08/2000, Suppl. Ordinario n. 140).
[21] Ministero della Salute, Piano Nazionale Radon (2002).
[22] European Union, Council directive 2013/59/EURATOM (OJ L-13 of 17/01/2014). [23] ICRP, ICRP Publication 103, Ann. ICRP 37 (2-4) (2007).
[24] Legge regionale 8 luglio 2019, n. 13 (GU 3aSerie Speciale - Regioni n.41 del 12-10-2019). [25] Decreto Legislativo 31 luglio 2020, n. 101 (GU Serie Generale del 12/08/2020, Suppl.
Ordinario n. 29).
[26] United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation, Sources and Effects of Ionizing Radiation Report, UNSCEAR 2008 Report to the General Assembly Sources, Vol. 1 (United Nations, New York) 2008.
[27] Coppola F. et al., Nuovo Cimento C, 41 (2019) 221. [28] D’Avino V. et al., Fresenius Environ. Bull., 29 (2020) 11190. [29] Pugliese M. et al., Nucl. Part. Phys. Proc., 306-308 (2019) 183. [30] De Cicco F. et al., Phys. Educ., 52 (2017) 065003.
[31] Pugliese M. et al., in Proceedings of the First International Meeting on Applied Physics (APHYS-2003), October 13–18th 2003, Badajoz, Spain, Book of Abstracts, edited by M´endez-Vilas A.(Departamento de Fisica, Universidad de Extremadura) 2003.
