Abstract

A year has passed since the nuclear power plant accident in Fukushima on March 11, 2011, and a survey for public perception on radiation by Korean people has been made. The methodological design was based on a quantitative survey and a frequency analysis was done. The analysis objects were survey papers (n=2,754pcs) answered by random ordinary citizens chosen from all over the country. The questionnaires, and study tool, were directly distributed and collected. A total of 40 questionnaires using a coefficient of Cronbach's ${\alpha}$ per each area was 'self perception of radiation' (0.620), 'radiation risk' (0.830), 'benefit from radiation' (0.781), 'radiation controlled' (0.685), 'informative source of radiation' (0.831), 'influence degree from Fukushima accident' (0.763), showing rather high score from all areas. As the result of the questionnaires, the knowledge of radiation concept was 69.50 out of 100 points, which shows a rather significant difference from the result of 'know well about radiation' (53.7%) and 'just know about radiation' (37.40%). According to the survey, one of the main reasons why radiation seems risky was that once exposed to radiation, it may not have negative impacts presently but, the next generation could see negative impacts (66.1%). About 41% of our respondents showed a negative position against the government's report on radiation while 39.5% of respondents said that we should stop running nuclear power in light of Fukushima nuclear power plant accident. This study was done for the first time by Korean people's public perception on radiation after the Fukushima nuclear power plant accident. We expect this might have significant contributions to the establishment of the government's policy on radiation.

Keywords

• Radiation;
• Perception;
• Fukushima;
• Nuclear power plant;
• Japan;
• Survey

• 방사선;
• 인식도;
• 후쿠시마;
• 원전;
• 일본;
• 설문;

File

Download PDF

Acknowledgement

Supported by : 한국원자력안전기술원, 한국동위원소협회

References

1. 중앙일보. 레벨7은 최악의 원전 사고 등급. 2011. 04.13. 3면.
2. 중앙일보. 후쿠시마 바닷물, 한국 오는 데 5년. 2011. 04.13. 8면.
3. 중앙일보. 고리 원전 1호, 수명연장 후 첫 사고. 2011. 04.14. 1면.
4. 이재기. 후쿠시마 원전 사고의 방사능에 대한 이해: 일본 원전사고 관련 국내 방사선 영향 긴급토론회. 한국과학기자협회.한국동위원소협회 2011.
5. Cho SK, Trone JR, Whang J, Lee MY. Assessment of public perception of radioactive waste management in Korea. SANDIA REPORT SAND2011-8529. 2011.

Cited by

1. Perception of low dose radiation risks among radiation researchers in Korea vol.12, pp.2, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0171777
2. More than ever, comment on ‘Chernobyl and Fukushima—Where are we now?’ vol.37, pp.3, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6498/aa637d
3. A Study on the Awareness of the Irradiated Food vol.8, pp.6, 2014, https://doi.org/10.7742/jksr.2014.8.6.347
4. Radiological Safety Perception Change after Spatial Dose Measurement of Radiology Department Students vol.40, pp.3, 2015, https://doi.org/10.14407/jrp.2015.40.3.174
5. The Relationships between Moral Sensitivity and Preference for Science, Belief about Learning Science of Middle School Students vol.35, pp.1, 2015, https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2015.35.1.0065
6. An Investigation of Awareness on the Fukushima Nuclear Accident and Radioactive Contamination vol.41, pp.1, 2016, https://doi.org/10.14407/jrpr.2016.41.1.007
7. Structural Relationship for Recognition of Radiation Risks on Management and Benefits of the University Students vol.12, pp.2, 2014, https://doi.org/10.14400/JDC.2014.12.2.431
8. Development and Characterization of a Dosimeter Using Tissue-Equivalent Scintillator by Photon-Counting Method vol.23, pp.1, 2014, https://doi.org/10.5369/JSST.2014.23.1.29
9. The Radiation Problem and Its Solution from a Health Communication Perspective vol.31, pp.Suppl 1, 2016, https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2016.31.S1.S88
10. Effects of the Questionnaire and Radioactivity Measurement of Fishery from the Fukushima Nuclear Disaster vol.10, pp.1, 2016, https://doi.org/10.7742/jksr.2016.10.1.53
11. Mapping the research trends on the biological effects of radiation less than 100 mSv: a bibliometric analysis for 30 years publication pp.1362-3095, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1080/09553002.2019.1552373