Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Perception of radiation hazards.

J A Sorenson

    Seminars in Nuclear Medicine
    |July 1, 1986
    PubMed
    Summary

    Public understanding of radiation risks is often inaccurate. Comparing radiation exposure to familiar risks, like natural background radiation, can help communicate health risks effectively.

    Related Concept Videos

    You might also read

    Related Articles

    Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

    Sort by
    Same author

    Problems in estimating hemodynamic response parameters from fMRI data.

    Human brain mapping·2010
    Same author

    Tamoxifen retinopathy in a male patient.

    American journal of ophthalmology·2001
    Same author

    Endoscopic vitreoretinal surgery for complicated proliferative diabetic retinopathy.

    Retina (Philadelphia, Pa.)·2001
    Same author

    Compensation of susceptibility-induced signal loss in echo-planar imaging for functional applications.

    Magnetic resonance imaging·2000
    Same author

    Retinal choroidal anastomoses and occult choroidal neovascularization in age-related macular degeneration.

    Ophthalmology·2000
    Same author

    Polypoidal choroidal vasculopathy masquerading as central serous chorioretinopathy.

    Ophthalmology·2000

    Area of Science:

    • Environmental Health
    • Risk Assessment
    • Radiation Biology

    Background:

    • Public perception of radiation risks is frequently distorted due to unfamiliarity with actual risk levels.
    • Accurate information on radiation risks needs to be disseminated to the public, patients, and research subjects.
    • Comparing radiation risks to more familiar risks is an effective communication strategy.

    Purpose of the Study:

    • To address the need for accurate public information on radiation risks.
    • To explore effective methods for communicating radiation health risks.
    • To provide context for understanding radiation exposure levels.

    Main Methods:

    • Utilizing comparisons between radiation risks and other familiar risks (e.g., natural background radiation, human activities).
    • Analyzing variations in natural background radiation levels globally and within the US.
    • Introducing concepts like 'de minimus risk' and 'probability of causation' for risk assessment.

    Main Results:

    • Natural background radiation averages about 100 mrem/yr, with significant regional variations (up to 400 mrem/yr in the US, 2,000 mrem/yr worldwide).
    • Variations in background radiation are attributed to altitude (cosmic rays) and soil/rock composition (terrestrial radiation).
    • Risk comparisons with voluntary and involuntary activities provide context for occupational and environmental exposures.

    Conclusions:

    • Effective communication of radiation risks relies on relatable comparisons.
    • Natural background radiation serves as a useful benchmark for understanding radiation exposure.
    • Concepts like 'de minimus risk' and 'probability of causation' aid in assessing low-level radiation exposure.

    Related Experiment Videos