Political Cortex: Brain Food for the Body Politic

Comments posted on news websites and blogs suggest widespread confusion, much of it surrounding the term “radiation poisoning,” which news sources frequently misapply or fail to explain. The difference between “contamination” and “exposure” is poorly understood. Thus we see headlines like this:  "Litvinenko Widow Has Traces of Poisoning." Reportedly, Mrs. Litvinenko has tested positive for polonium-210 contamination but does not have symptoms of radiation poisoning, a term that implies a high dose of radiation. There is seldom a comprehensible discussion of polonium-210’s impact on the environment.

Cutbacks in news media coverage of federal agencies may explain why an article describing health effects of radiation cited the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), federal government’s nuclear engineering authority. The federal authority in matters of health is the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), in the Department of Health and Human Services.

Authorities in the UK and some news media seem anxious to stamp down public fears surrounding radiation. But, fear, provided it is reasonably realistic, serves a useful purpose. It motivates us to take actions that protect us from harm. Trying too hard to downplay a threat risks making the public so complacent that few come forward for testing. The National Institutes of Health website warns, "DO NOT minimize the potential danger -- radiation exposure is dangerous!" Importantly, the NIH website addresses primarily health workers trained to work with radiological devices. The lay public gets a different story from the nuclear power industry which perceives radiation fear as a roadblock to expanding its fleet of nuclear reactors.

Industry websites portray radiation as "natural" and generally avoid referring to radiation's negative impacts. Whenever a radiological emergency occurs, news articles appear reflecting the industry’s PR line that fear is a greater threat than radiactive contamination because it causes needless financial loss for businesses. Risk analyses are trotted out to show that Americans fear radiation disproportionately compared to more common hazards. Based on that, public fears are dismissed as “unscientific.” That much may be true. But, why do people fear radiation disproportionately? Because, at the end of the day, after the risk analyses have been put to bed, Americans still lack a solid understanding of radiation and how to protect themselves from its effects. The public’s fear of radiation is an entirely reasonable response to a hazard it doesn’t understand. But, rather than empower citizens with facts about the hazard, industry seeks to divert attention from it. Government agencies, influenced by one of the nation’s richest lobbies, are only slightly more informative.

Polonium-210 is one of the world’s most dangerous substances. Depending on the news source, it is 150 million, 200 million, 150 billion or a trillion times more deadly than cyanide. But, as a threat to public health, polonium-210 pales next to what I call “balonium-210” – misleading and erroneous information about radioactive isotopes and their effects. In a nuclear emergency or dirty bomb attack, citizens who lack such knowledge will suffer avoidable illness, even death. If communication systems go down (and they likely will following a nuclear detonation), citizens will be forced to rely on what they already know about protecting themselves from radiation exposure and contamination. A public education program is therefore vitally important, and it is not too late to launch one, if only it can escape a powerful lobby’s gravitational pull.