In 1951 Jack De Ment described a distressing psychological condition arising with the invention of atomic military weapons just six years earlier; a communicable disorder he labelled “radiophobia.” In an editorial in the Western Journal of Surgery, Obstetrics, and Gynecology, he argued it threatened to inhibit development of atomic technology. Educating the public, De Ment stressed, was a key therapeutic goal:
“It is the incomplete, ill-digested half-knowledge which is the precursor of the radiophobic syndrome and which causes more fear and superstition-and their concomitant changes in the individual-than a full and reasonable understanding of atomic energy and its limitations.”
Michael Myslobodsky points to a mistaken, un-educated view of scientific thought and technological innovation. He suggests:
“Perhaps fear of radiation might be more accurately described as a fear of science. Paradoxically, our society has enormous respect for science, mixed with a strong antipathy, mistrust, and apprehension of scientists, or rather, fear of authority. Anything that comes out of a laboratory might be rumored to be a dangerous experimentation with public health.”
Klaus Becker suggests radiophobia is a “serious but curable mental disorder,” as if someday a prescription pill may aide those who are ailing.
There is reason to be concerned about radiophobia and the social and political problems it creates, but those who proclaim its liabilities rarely undertake consideration of the social and cultural dynamics contributing to this “phobia.”
Indeed, scholars, government officials, and industry spokespersons often do not seek to explain the roots of radiophobia but rather dismiss public anxiety by implying the basis for concern is erroneous and irrational. That is, the public is the problem–not nuclear technology or the institutional structures that provide oversight.
This does not get at the essence of the problem. And to suggest radiophobia is a mental illness is out of touch with the legacy of the atomic-industrial complex. It is this history, and the conduct of key institutional actors, that underlies radiophobia. It makes little sense to belittle the public for excessive fear of radiation–as if it is the problem unto itself–when it is an expression of organizational and institutional failures of foresight.
Indeed, excessive fear of ionizing radiation and nuclear technology more broadly is not an individual-level psychological abnormality. Radiophobia derives from a reticence to deal with the public in an honest and forthright manner-particularly when things go wrong. It is rooted in a deficit of trust in powerful actors in society.
In turn, radiophobia is born of recreancy or the failure of institutional and organizational actors to uphold their responsibilities in a manner consistent with their obligations to the public; a “retrogression or failure to follow through on a duty or trust, William Freudenburg stressed.” Indeed, Freudenburg introduced the term to counter an undue focus on the risk perceptions of the individual rather than the organizational and institutional management of risky socio-technical systems in society.
The problem is the failure of powerful actors in society to consider public welfare before other considerations, far too often. Whether describing atmospheric atomic testing in Nevada and the south Pacific or the civilian nuclear power industry–corporate actors and government officials have, far too often, neglected to demonstrate public health and safety is a predominant focus.
There is a need to confront the disproportionate reaction of the public to the potential hazards of nuclear technology. The question is whether in doing so we have a valid conception of the origins of radiophobia, to begin with?
Radiophobia is typically viewed as indicative of public irrationality, and yet apprehension in regard to ionizing radiation is derived of the arrogance of experts tethered to industry and over-arching institutions beset by myopia and narrow, parochial objectives. What is typically demanded of the public is reasonable submissiveness. What the public expects, indeed demands, is competency and constancy, and failure in this regard underlies the social production of radiophobia.
Fear comprises a rational response to a threat whereas a phobia denotes an irrational, disproportionate reaction to a perceived or actual danger. Too often radiophobia, as the name implies, is construed as concern with something “imaginary.” It is dismissive by its very invocation. But excessive fear of what, exactly? It is a crucial question as high-risk, low probability socio-technical systems are unsustainable over time absent public acceptance. It is imperative, in turn, to explain rather than explain-away radiophobia.
Instead of imagining radiophobia as evidence of an anxiety disorder plaguing an un-educated public–it is instructive to examine existing power relations in society, the legacy of misinformation promoted by the atomic-industrial complex, and the patronizing stance of actors charged with representing the public. Castigating non-experts for assuming the situation is worse than expert-knowledge suggests, without recognizing the latter evolves over time and may be corrupted by power, is counter-productive.
Too often the goal is not to uncover the social production of risk perceptions but to overcome them.
For more information:
Jack De Ment, “Radiophobia: A New Psychological Syndrome,” Western Journal of Surgery, Obstetrics, and Gynecology 59 (11) (1951) viii-x, x.
Michael Myslobodsky, “The Origin of Radiophobias”, Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 44 (4) (2001) 543-555, 10.1353/pbm.2001.0071.
Klaus Becker, “Radiophobia: A Serious but Curable Mental Disorder,” Japan Atomic Energy Institute Conference, (March 2005) 154-158, https://inis.iaea.org/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/36/113/36113743.pdf?r=1&r=1.
William R. Freudenburg, “Risk and Recreancy: Weber, the Division of Labor, and the Rationality of Risk Perceptions,” Social Forces 71 (4) (1993) 909-932, 916, https://doi.org/10.2307/2580124.
James Rice, “Recreancy and the Social Origins of Radiophobia,” Technology in Society 68 (2022), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2022.101886.
This following interview is emblematic of the dismissive, self-assured perspective of those who contend radiophobia is a reflection of underlying mental health issues: https://thenewamerican.com/radiophobia-the-enemy-of-energy-independence/