Problems of Radiation Medicine and Radiobiology

M. V. Gresko, I. V. Perchuk

State Institution «National Research Center for Radiation Medicine of the National Academy of Medical Sciences of Ukraine», 53 Yuriia Illienka Str., Kyiv, 04050, Ukraine

PSYCHOPHYSIOLOGICAL FEATURES OF RADIATION RISK PERCEPTION

Objective: to determine the subjective and psychophysiological characteristics of the perception of radiation risk, to identify destructive individual-typological personality traits, as well as factors that can be the basis of psychological compensation for victims of various radiation disasters and accidents.
Object and method. A comparative analysis of psychometric and neurophysiological parameters of hypertrophied perception of radiation risk in the following groups was carried out: liquidators (clean-up workers) of the consequences of the Chornobyl accident and evacuees from the Chornobyl exclusion zone (CEZ) – 317 people total, participants in the anti-terrorist operation (ATO) – 101 people, and control group – 85 people. We used psychodiagnostic and neurophysiological (computerized electroencephalography) techniques.
Results. In the groups of liquidators and evacuees from CEZ there are significantly more people with hypertrophied perception of radiation risk compared to the control group and the comparison group (liquidators – 71.88 %, liquidators-evacuees – 80.0 %, evacuees 76.92 %, ATO participants – 33.78 %, control group – 35.0 %). Among the respondents with hypertrophied perception of radiation risk radiation factors, and, most of all, diseases associated with ionizing radiation, hold the first rank places among 31 evaluated factors in all groups. The respondents with adequate perception of the radiation risk are primarily concerned about social stress and environmental factors. Correlation analysis showed that there are no correlation between hypertrophied perception of radiation risk and actual documented radiation dose. Hypertrophied perception depends on gender, level of education, family income and level of knowledge about ionizing radiation. It affects perception of one’s health, makes you feel helpless, increase the level of distress from the Chornobyl disaster and the Fukushima-1 disaster in Japan, and is also associated with the Revolution of Dignity. Hypertrophied perception of radiation risk contributes to disorders of psychosomatic health and deformation of personality traits. Comparative analysis of the parameters of bioelectrical activity of the brain of persons with hypertrophied perception of the radiation threat showed an increase in brain’s delta, theta- and beta- activity with suppression of alpha-activity and dominant frequency.
Conclusions. In all examined groups a significant percentage of people with hypertrophied perception were revealed. The key role in the process of perception of a radiation risk is played not by the real danger of the situation and the documented dose of radiation, but by its perception and awareness. Hypertrophied perception of the radiation risk contributes to psychosomatic health disorders and deformation of personality traits, which is confirmed by neurophysiological studies.
Key words: perception of radiation risk, extraversion, neuroticism, character accentuation, electroencephalography (EEG), anti-terrorist operation, clean-up workers (liquidators) of the Chornobyl accident, evacuated from the Chornobyl exclusion zone.

Problems of Radiation Medicine and Radiobiology.
2021;26:371-397. doi: 10.33145/2304-8336-2021-26-371-397

full text

1. Drottz-Sjoberg B-M. Exposure to risk and trust in information; Implications for the credibility of risk communication. The Australasian Journal of Disaster and Trauma Studies. 2000. URL: http://www.massey.ac.nz/~trauma/issues/previous.htm.
2. Darves-Bornoz JM. Personality and somatic disorders. L'Encephale. 2018;44:471-475. doi: 10.1016/j.encep.2018.02.002.
3. [ICRP recommendations. Publication 26: Radiation protection]. Moscow: Atomizdat; 1978. 87 p. Russian.
4. Perko T. Radiation risk perception:a discrepancy between the experts and the general population. J Environ Radioact. 2014;133:86-91.
5. Tarasyuk OE, Los ІP, Shabunina ND, Nezdemovska TE. [The level of knowledge about the radiation factor and the perception of the radiation risk of youth in the city of Slavutich]. Environment Health. 2013;(1):33-38. Ukrainian.
6. Los ІP, Shabunina ND, Tarasyuk OE, Semenyuk ND. [Perception of the consequences of the accident at the Chernobil NPP by the population of Ukraine (according to the questionnaire survey)]. Hygiene of Settlements. 2013;(62):212-218. Ukrainian.
7. Pavlenko TO, Aksenov MV, Fryzyuk MA, Turos OI, German O. [Requirements for the organization of educational work with the population regarding radiation risks of exposure]. Hygiene of Settlements. 2011;(57):276-279. Ukrainian.
8. Burtovaya EYu, Akleev, SA, Shalaginov AV. [Psychosocial aspects of resettlement of residents of the Muslyumovo village of the Chelyabisk region due to emergencies at the Mayak production association]. In: Medical-biological and social-psychological problems of safety in emergency situations. 2011;(2):105-108. Russian.
9. Dvoryanchikov NV, Starichenko NV, Enikolopov SN. [Features of perception and experience of "invisible" stress by servicemen working with sources of ionizing radiation]. Practical Psychologist's Journal. 2005;1:49-63. Russian.
10. Takebayashi Y, Lyamzina Yu, Suzuk Y, Murakami M. Risk perception and anxiety regarding radiation after the 2011 Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant Accident: A systematic qualitative review. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2017;14(11):1306. doi:10.3390/ijerph14111306.
11. Nakayachi K, Yokoyama HM, Oki S. Public anxiety after the 2011 Tohoku earthquake: Fluctuations in hazard perception after catastrophe. J Risk Res. 2015;18:156-169. doi:
10.1080/13669877.2013.875936.
12. Kohzaki M, Ootsuyama A, Moritake T, Abe T, Kubo T, Okazaki R. What have we learned from a questionnaire survey of citizens and doctors both inside and outside Fukushima? Survey comparison between 2011 and 2013. J Radiol Prot. 2015;35:N1-N17. doi: 10.1088/0952-4746/35/1/N1.
13. Loganovsky KN, Havenaar JM, Tintle NL, Guey LT, Kotov R, Bromet EJ. The mental health of clean-up workers 18 years after the Chernobyl accident. Psychol Med. 2008;38(4):481-488.
14. Bromet EJ, Havenaar JM. Psychological and perceived health effects of the Chernobyl disaster: a 20-year review. Health Phys. 2007;93(5):516-521. doi: 10.1097/01.HP.0000279635.14108.02.
15. Maeda M, Oe M. Mental health consequences and social issues after the Fukushima Disaster. Asia Pacific Journal of Public Health. 2017;29(2S):36S-46S. doi: 10.1177/1010539516689695.
16. Suzuki Y, Yabe H, Yasumura S, Ohira T, Niwa S, Ohtsuru A, et al. Psychological distress and the perception of radiation risks: the Fukushima health management survey. Bull World Health Organ. 2015;93:598-605.
17. Shigemura J, Tanigawa T, Nishi D, Matsuoka Y, Nomura S, Yoshino A. Associations between disaster exposures, peritraumatic distress, and posttraumatic stress responses in Fukushima nuclear plant workers following the 2011 nuclear accident: the Fukushima NEWS Project study. PLoS One. 2014;9(2). doi: 10.1371/journal.pone. 0087516.
18. Davydkin MN, Panyushkina NP. [The role of biological and socio-psychological factors in the formation of neurotic disorders in military personnel]. In: Actual problems of psychiatry, narcology and neurology: collection of scientific papers. Khabarovsk: State Scientific. Social Center and the Court. Psychiatry; 1998. p. 13-16. Russian.
19. Adan A., Forero D. A., Navarro J. F. Personality traits related to binge drinking: a systematic review. Front Psychiatry. 2017;8:134. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2017.00134.
20. Michaud A, Vainik U, Garcia-Garcia I, Dagher A. Overlapping neural endophenotypes in addiction and obesity. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2017;8:127. doi: 10.3389/fendo.2017.00127.
21. Eysenck HJ. The biological basis of personality. Springfield, I.L.: Thomas; 1967. 339 p.
22. Watson D, Naragon-Gainey K. Personality, emotions, and the emotional disorders. Clin Psychol Sci. 2014;2(4):422-442.
23. Panchenko OA, Basarab IYu, Pugach EA. [Socio-psychological characteristics of changes in the personality of liquidators of the Chernobyl accident]. Ukrainian Newsletter of Psychoneurology. 2012;20(3):208. Russian.
24. Osukhovskaya ES. [Clinical and psychopathological features of personality disorders in the participants in the liquidation of the consequences of the Chernobyl accident in the remote period and their correction]. Arch Psychiatry. 2003;(4):50-57. Russian.
25. Reshetnikova EM, Rybnikov VYu. [Psychological status of liquidators and the population living in radiation-contaminated areas (long-term consequences and rehabilitation)]. Multidisciplinary clinic of the XXI century. In: Advanced medical technologies: Abstracts of the International Science.-Pract. conf. (2011 Sep 14-16; St. Petersburg, Russia). St. Petersburg; 2011. p. 250–253. Russian.
26. Loganovsky KM. [Mental disorders under the action of ionizing radiation as a result of the Chernobyl disaster: neurophysiological mechanisms, unified clinical diagnostics, treatment] [dissertation of the Dr. Med. Sci.]. Kiev; 2002. 462 p. Ukrainian.
27. World Health Organization. [Global health risk factors. Mortality and disease burden attributable to some of the major risk factors]. World Health Organization; 2015. 62 p. Russian.
28. Alekseenko SN, Drobot EV. [Disease prevention: a tutorial]. Moscow: Publishing house. Acad. Natural Science; 2015. 449 p. Russian.
29. World Health Organization. Global Health Estimates 2016: Deaths by Cause, Age, Sex, by Country and by Region, 2000-2016. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2018. URL:https://www.who.int/healthinfo/global_burden_disease/estimates/en/
30. State Statistics Service of Ukraine. Population of Ukraine for 2016. Demographic Yearbook. 2017. 134 c. URL: http://database.ukrcensus.gov.ua/PXWEB2007/ukr/publ_new1/2017/naselen_2016.pdf Ukrainian.
31. World Health Organization. [World health statistics 2017: monitoring health for the SDGs, Sustainable Development Goals]. URL: https://www.who.int/gho/publications/world_health_statistics/2017/ru/. Russian.
32. Knyazev G. Motivation, emotion, and their inhibitory control mirrored in brain oscillations. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral. 2007;31(3):377-395. doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2006.10.004
33. Vaitl D, Birbaumer N, Gruzelier J, Jamieson GA, Kotchoubey B, Kubler A, et al. Psychobiology of altered states of consciousness. Psychological Bulletin. 2005;131:98-127.
34. Herrmann WM, Winterer G. Electroencephalography in psychiatry-current status and outlook. Nervenarzt. 1996. Vol. 67(5). P. 348-59.
35. Guntekin B., Basar E. Event-related beta oscillations are affected by emotional eliciting stimuli. Neurosci Lett. 2010;483(3):173-178. doi: 10.1016/j.neulet.2010.08.002
36. Knyazev G. EEG correlates of personality types. Netherlands Journal of Psychology. 2006;62(2):78-87. doi: 10.1007/BF03061054
37. World Health Organization. Reducing risks, promoting healthy life : the World Health Report. Geneva: WHO; 2002. 230 p.
38. Dosman DM, Adamovich WL, Hrudey SE. Socioeconomic determinants of health – and food safety – related risk perception. Risk Analysis. 2001;21(2):307-317.
39. Bortnovsky VN, Mamchits LP, Tchaikovskaya MA, Tereshchenko LA. [Social and hygienic aspects of the perception of environmental risks by the population of Gomel]. In: Health and the environment: materials of the international. scientific-practical Conf. (2018 Nov 15-16; Minsk). Minsk: RSPC of Hygiene; 2018. Vol. 2. p. 138-140. Russian.
40. Gloster C. Women needs to perceive risk as an opportunity. Winning at Work. 2004;12(11):32-45.
41. Cal?skan G, Stork O. Hippocampal network oscillations as mediators of behavioural metaplasticity: Insights from emotional learning. Neurobiol Learn Mem. 2018;154:37-53. doi: 10.1016/j.nlm.2018.02.022.