Radiation worse than caves and spiders: radiophobia and credibility to nuclear technology
26.04.2019

The newspaper "Rosatom Country" has published a column by Alexandr Koldobskiy, Candidate of Physical and Mathematical Science, Deputy Director of the Institute of International Relations MEPhI, the veteran of atomic energy and industry about radiophobia and credibility of nuclear technologies.

Phobia is an interesting thing, multifaceted. But I'm not here to discuss, for example, claustrophobia or arachnophobia. After all, no one exploits the theme of causeless fear of caves or spiders — especially with the involvement of the media and organization of mass protests.

In the case of radiophobia, they count on the fact that many people are suspicious about nuclear technology, and someone is simply afraid of them. This last in extreme manifestation is radiophobia itself.

The biggest mistake of the representatives of the nuclear industry is not to pay attention to this distrust. This has already been in the history of nuclear power and led to a sad result — a fantastic exaggeration of the risk caused by nuclear technology and radiation in the mass consciousness. There are more than a few of examples. But we must understand that the development of technology, which is “has” alertness inside, is associated with additional difficulties. This is what IAEA General Director Yukiya Amano had in mind, saying: "The main thing for nuclear energy is to gain public trust."

Now, actually, about nuclear phobias. Their genesis has nothing to do with the genesis of uncontrollable fear of caves and spiders. We are dealing with a long-term information policy. Its economic and social objectives depend on the circumstances, but the overall objective remains the same: to maintain fear. And the question of how to use it is tactical, situational. Once again there are enough examples. The main method is translation the "jungle telegraph": gossips and rumors, which sometimes are monstrous in absurdity, about the "unique danger" of radiation and everything connected with it. They are usually not accompanied by any reasonable argument.

As I can take as an example the questions asked to me quite recently at the meetings organized in Vladimir and Smolensk by the Information center of atomic energy, literally or very close to it: "Can radiation be inherited?", "Is it true that volunteers perform work at nuclear power plants, receiving huge doses of radiation?", "Is it possible to eat bananas because there is a lot of radiation?" You don't know whether to laugh or cry. However, in the first place you should just answer, no matter how savage and illiterate a question is. And you just say that a) it is not transmitted, it is impossible in principle; b) the law is never violated at nuclear power plants, especially one of the most serious articles; c) the volume of bananas consumption, as well as other food products, is limited only by the strength of the stomach, but not by radiation risk. Poor bananas in this sense, for some reason, are especially unlucky — rumors about their abnormal radioactivity are very common.

It is good that people can ask questions to professionals — I extend huge gratitude to the staff of Information centers, arranging such meetings. It is necessary to patiently and respectfully develop in society the understanding that it’s needed to trust professionals. Of course, professionals can be wrong. But it is much worse to trust, and even recklessly, non-professionals, especially non-professionals who have a personal interest in the hoarding of nuclear technology: journalists, who often publish outright fakes about "terrible radiation", self-styled people's tribunes organizing mass actions (as, for example, recently in Primorye) under slogans of fight against "awful radiation" for satisfaction of their own ambition or just to start political career.

Another important thing. Trust is the acceptance of argument, which in all fakes and appeals is very simple and monotonous: nuclear technologies are dangerous simply because it is so, and no proof is required. Here we recall the statement of the former Minister for environmental protection and nuclear safety of Germany Jurgen Trittin, who said a few years ago in a discussion on energy technologies: "Nuclear energy does not produce greenhouse emissions, but it is dangerous in itself." Here we go. It is dangerous and what else is there to discuss. Like Jules Verne’s Ned Land with his immortal "Whales live a thousand years because people say so, and because people know so". This is how distrust of nuclear technology forms in a self-sustaining regime. That's why the word "radiation" is not just among the main horror movies of the era, but also probably the champion of the inadequacy of mass perception.

There is a line beyond which the theory that has mastered the minds, in this case, the danger of everything atomic, becomes a material force according to Marx. In places where this has happened, nuclear technology faces a sad fate. As example – Germany and Belgium (and not only there) where the fear of nuclear power has made its way to the highest echelon of power.

Thank God, Russia avoided it. Largely due to the information policy of Rosatom. At its core there is strict adherence to the principle of "do not be silent, tell the truth". It has made it possible to avoid lots of many gossips and speculations about nuclear energy and industry! Secondly, the availability of publicly available information resources, including on the radiation situation in the areas where nuclear power plants operate, and in the country as a whole — look, study, draw conclusions. Third, it is intensive and diverse work with young people. Primitive anti-nuclear propaganda is ineffective in relation to thinking, educated young people, who are the future of scientific and technical elite of Russia. Finally, fourth, and this has already been said: a continuous dialogue with society. And no professional has the moral right to refuse this work: the proper level of confidence in nuclear technology has not been achieved yet.