As the deadline for this blog post approached, my anxiety about it ratcheted. The reason being, that the issue of radiation, its perceived safety for living organisms, and whether or not there can ever be a safe dose threshold is at the very core of the fears, concerns, and controversies that have dogged civil nuclear power for centuries. When speaking to my research participants or – generally interested people – I have found that no matter what they name as their main concern, the central issue is always radiation and the effects (real or perceived) that it may or may not have on the environment, their bodies, their children, their food, their water. Even an abstracted fear, such as whether or not to trust the nuclear industry or the plant operators, comes down to the same thing; you’re deciding whether or not to trust that the nuclear industry can deal with the problems presented by radiation – how to contain it, control it, protect us from it.

Prior to beginning my study of the public discourses surrounding nuclear power and the environment in the UK, my opinions on the subject of radiation were confused, but conformed to what could be seen as the generic negative view: a vague, unexamined fear fed by nightmare stories that seem to filter through society. I have had the good fortune to be closely linked to a group of researchers at the Immobilisation Science Laboratory (ISL) at the University of Sheffield, and two years of conversations with them about radiation, safety, and what we actually should be worried about have both eased my fears but also confused me. Eased, because I’ve come to understand the safety protocols in place throughout the nuclear academy and industry and have been relieved to have honest conversations with scientists who have real worries and concerns, rather than the arrogant, ivory tower attitudes that I was expecting (although don’t worry, I have come across a few of those, too!). Confused, because – as anyone studying for a PhD will tell you – the more you learn, the more aware you become of how little you know and of how much more there is to know than you could ever come to grips with.

There are a few things that have stayed with me, that I always think about when the issue of radiation comes up in discussion and I present them to you here as follows. Firstly, some family history; a few years before I was born, my father was diagnosed with an aggressive cancer in his mouth and tongue. He had some pretty scary surgery where about half his tongue was simply cut away, and the rest sewn to his teeth to stop it from moving while he healed. He also had radiotherapy. Ionizing radiation was directed in a concentrated stream into the tissue on one side of his face, and the process effectively stopped the cancer from recurring for a good 25 years or so. There have been some extremely minor complications as he’s aged – the tissue on that side of his face has lost more elasticity than the other side and when he’s tired he sometimes struggles to speak clearly. But he’s alive today because of it. When I started my PhD studies I was shocked to realise that the nuclear technology and radiation used to cure my father was virtually the same as what might be emitted in routine discharges from a nuclear power plant. Nuclear technology and radiation are just not as black and white as they are often presented to the public. Many people fear that radiation causes cancer – my father is alive because radiation killed his cancer.

Additionally, as part of my research into what motivates previously anti-nuclear environmentalists to change their minds about the technology, I was advised to watch the documentary Pandora’s Promise by director Robert Stone (2013). I am aware that the film has a certain angle on the nuclear debate, and is not the dispassionate, neutral exposé of “the facts”. What struck me was that the narrator, Mark Lynas, and the film crew were filmed in various parts of the world holding up a Geiger counter. Brazil’s popular Guarapari beach was shown to register 30.81 microsieverts of radiation, whereas standing directly outside the sarcophagus at Chernobyl on registered 3.74 microsieverts. A Geiger counter held up by someone standing directly next to some full waste canisters at a plant in the USA registered only 0.10 microsieverts. Lynas speaks to one man, lying fully covered in the dark grey sand at Guarapari Beach, who explains that he comes to the beach regularly because “He has body pains. It helps.” The radioactive sand is therapeutic. The widely varying levels of natural background radiation present throughout the world makes a zero-tolerance policy on radiation dosage unworkable and impossible to implement, by definition.

It’s so easy to get confused and worried about nuclear power, radiation, nuclear waste, and all the commonly associated issues because the basic science of reactor design and waste containment is so far outside the understanding of the majority of people. Ironically, going back over the sources that I used for this piece has eased my concerns, I’ve realised we always remember the negative associations more clearly than the good. Stopping and thinking can change your opinions, it’s fascinating and that’s why I enjoy studying these issues.

Caroline McCalman is a postgraduate researcher at The University Of Sheffield