Atomic Energy: Health, Perception, and Public Response
1. What is the core issue regarding the 1959 agreement between the WHO and the IAEA, and why is it being questioned?
The 1959 agreement (WHA 12-40) between the World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) stipulated that WHO work and programs related to the IAEA's activities would be subject to the latter's control and approval, and that such work would be conducted through negotiated consensus. This has led to concerns about the WHO’s independence, implying potential subordination to the IAEA, affecting its ability to operate impartially on matters related to atomic energy and health. The core issue is whether this agreement compromises WHO’s autonomy in exercising its mandate.
2. Does the agreement imply that WHO is subordinate to the IAEA?
No, according to a statement issued by WHO in 2001, and reiterated by a response from the European Commission, the 1959 Agreement does not mean the WHO is subordinate to the IAEA. While the agreement promotes consultation and cooperation, it does not affect WHO's ability to exercise its statutory responsibilities independently. The agreement is meant to create a general framework that allows the two organizations to collaborate based on mutual programs and priorities without one controlling the other.
3. How does the public perceive the peaceful use of atomic energy, and what influences this perception?
Public perception of the peaceful use of atomic energy is complex and deeply influenced by the history of its introduction—namely, the atomic bombs. This results in a strong association with fear and anxiety, which often overshadows the potential benefits. The invisible and powerful nature of radiation, coupled with a general mistrust of information sources (due to historical events like world wars and propaganda), creates a widespread sense of confusion, and an inclination to view atomic energy with suspicion. Additionally, early use of ionizing radiation in the treatment of severe diseases like cancer has further contributed to anxiety surrounding radiation. The press, through often sensationalized reporting, also plays a significant role in shaping public perception, highlighting the dangers more than the constructive applications.
4. What are the potential mental health impacts of the development of atomic energy?
The mental health impacts of atomic energy development can be categorized into direct and indirect effects. Direct impacts could involve brain damage from radiation exposure, though this is less likely from peaceful uses unless in accidents. Indirectly, the advent of atomic energy can provoke strong psychological reactions such as irrational fears, anxiety, and denial due to its association with destructive power. The socio-economic impact can also cause disruption and social disorganization, leading to feelings of insecurity, loss of control, and stress, which can manifest as mental health issues. Additionally, inflated hopes regarding atomic energy can result in disillusionment, frustration, and even hostility.
5. Are there specific groups or populations particularly prone to unhealthy emotional responses related to atomic energy?
While reactions to atomic energy vary, certain groups might be more susceptible to unhealthy emotional responses. People in positions of authority, for instance, may experience heightened anxiety due to the responsibilities and uncertainties associated with managing this technology. The general public, influenced by fear-based messaging and distrust of information, often exhibit anxiety, confusion, or denial. Additionally, those undergoing radiation treatment may exhibit psychological symptoms, though these are often linked to their fear of the disease rather than directly from the radiation itself. It is essential to note that the reactions can be heightened in response to events such as accidents.
6. How is the media portraying the peaceful use of atomic energy, and what effects are these portrayals having?
The media’s portrayal of atomic energy tends to emphasize its dangers and potential for harm, often using sensational headlines and focusing on alarming aspects such as radioactive contamination, fall-out, and genetic risks, this can contribute to a general atmosphere of anxiety and fear, reinforcing the public’s negative associations with atomic power. While the media may also cover the benefits, the disproportionate focus on the dangers and the use of alarming language lead to a public perception that is heavily skewed toward fear rather than informed understanding.
7. What kinds of research and actions are needed to better address the mental health aspects of atomic energy?
Several research and action areas are necessary. First, psychological research into the impacts of atomic energy, including the effects of radiation on the nervous system of the embryo, is essential, though very challenging to accomplish. Second, local community-based programs of education, involving experts like psychiatrists, psychologists, sociologists, and journalists are needed to increase the public’s understanding. These programs should not use mass propaganda techniques, but rather should attempt to build trust through personal interaction and open communication, focused on long term education that avoids mass messaging and "scare tactics". Third, it is crucial to investigate the public’s reactions to new nuclear installations and to evaluate the psychological implications of safety measures and security protocols at atomic energy plants. Finally, improving the communication between scientists, authorities, and the public is essential to fostering mutual understanding and addressing mistrust, in order to form policy grounded in truth and public good.
8. Why does the advent of atomic energy evoke such a profound emotional response, and how is it related to human experience?
The profound emotional response to atomic energy is rooted in its unique qualities as a powerful, invisible, and potentially uncontrollable force. It triggers primal anxieties tied to childhood experiences of helplessness and dependence on powerful forces that may be unpredictable. The magnitude of atomic energy's destructive potential is comparable to children's phantasies of great power and retribution. Moreover, atomic energy brings up feelings of guilt and responsibility due to its connection with nuclear weapons and the potential threat it poses to the future of humanity, which may have a regressive tendency in adults to react in more childlike ways. This association with both power and destruction creates a complex emotional landscape that requires careful consideration, understanding, and research.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Atomic Age Anxiety: WHO & the Peaceful Atom
Timeline of Events
●
1946: A WHO article titled "Mental Hygiene in the Atomic Age" is published
●
1947-1957: The coverage of nuclear energy in a popular UK newspaper is sporadic, averaging one news story every ten days and one feature article every three months.
●
1949-1953: A survey of the International Bibliography of Atomic Energy shows a strong focus on nuclear physics and chemistry with very little coverage of psychological medicine or mental health hazards related to radiation.
●
Late 1954: The Director-General of the WHO gathers four consultants to advise on the organization's policy regarding the health aspects of atomic energy.
●
August 1955: The United Nations International Conference on the Peaceful Uses of Atomic Energy is held in Geneva. Professor W. V. Mayneord is quoted as saying that the peaceful development of atomic energy is "humanity's greatest adventure."
●
1955-1956: A press cutting agency monitoring global media for references to WHO finds atomic energy to be the most widely covered subject, with coverage of dangers and anxieties outweighing constructive uses of atomic energy by roughly five to one.
●
1955: The WHO Regional Office for Europe holds a training course in health physics in Stockholm.
●
February 1956: An American Institute of Public Opinion Survey reveals that about half of those interviewed cannot name a single non-military use of atomic energy.
●
April 1956: A WHO Study Group on Radiological Units and Radiological Protection meets in Stockholm.
●
August 1956: A WHO Study Group on the Effect of Radiation on Human Heredity meets in Copenhagen.
●
February 1957: The Sub-Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Atomic Energy of the World Federation for Mental Health (WFMH) discusses the problems arising from the peaceful uses of atomic energy at a meeting in London.
●
February 1957: The World Federation for Mental Health Executive Board meets in London.
●
1957: WHO Regional Office for Europe holds a second training course in health physics in Mol, Belgium.
●
September 1957: A WHO Expert Committee on Postgraduate Training in the Public Health Aspects of Atomic Energy meets in Geneva.
●
October 1957: The WHO Study Group on Mental Health Aspects of the Peaceful Uses of Atomic Energy meets in Geneva from October 21-26.
●
October 10, 1957: A reactor accident occurs at the Windscale plutonium-producing plant in the United Kingdom.
●
October 1957: A prominent politician is quoted as saying another country is "determined to outstrip his own country in the development of atomic power"
●
November 1957: A WHO Expert Committee on the Introduction of Radiation Medicine into the Undergraduate Curriculum meets in Geneva.
●
1958: The WHO publishes Technical Report Series No. 151: "Mental Health Aspects of the Peaceful Uses of Atomic Energy," based on the findings of the 1957 Study Group.
●
May 28, 1959: The 12th Assembly of the World Health Organization adopts Resolution WHA 12-40, an agreement linking the WHO to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). This agreement gives the IAEA control over WHO programs related to its sphere of activities.
●
February 23, 2001: WHO Statement WHO/06 is issued, clarifying the 1959 Agreement and stating it does not affect WHO's independent exercise of its responsibilities nor place the WHO in a subordinate position to the IAEA.
●
December 18, 2002: Marie Isler Béguin submits Written Question E-3662/02 to the Council, regarding the amendment of WHA Agreement 12-40.
●
December 6, 2002: Marie Isler Béguin submits Written Question E-3663/02 to the Commission, regarding the amendment of WHA Agreement 12-40.
●
February 4, 2003: Mrs. de Palacio answers Written Question E-3663/02 on behalf of the Commission, stating that the 1959 agreement is a general framework for cooperation and does not imply WHO's submission to IAEA authority.
●
May 13, 2003: The Council responds to Written Question E-3662/02, stating they have not discussed the points raised in the question.
●
July 10, 2003: The answers to both E-3662/02 and E-3663/02 are published in the Official Journal C 161 E.
Cast of Characters
●
Marie Isler Béguin: A Member of the European Parliament (MEP) from the Verts/ALE group. She submitted written questions E-3662/02 to the Council and E-3663/02 to the Commission, raising concerns about the 1959 agreement between the WHO and the IAEA and its potential impact on the independence of the WHO.
●
Mrs. de Palacio: A representative of the European Commission who answered Written Question E-3663/02 on behalf of the Commission. She clarified that the 1959 agreement was not an instance of WHO submitting to IAEA authority.
●
Professor W. V. Mayneord: A participant at the United Nations International Conference on the Peaceful Uses of Atomic Energy in Geneva in 1955. He described the peaceful development of atomic energy as "humanity's greatest adventure" with inherent risks.
●
Dr. Austin M. Brues: Director, Division of Biological and Medical Research, Argonne National Laboratory, Lemont, Ill., USA. A member of the WHO Study Group on Mental Health Aspects of the Peaceful Uses of Atomic Energy.
●
Mr. Ritchie Calder: A science writer from Sutton, Surrey, England. A member of the WHO Study Group on Mental Health Aspects of the Peaceful Uses of Atomic Energy.
●
Dr. Brock Chisholm: Former Director-General of WHO from Victoria, B.C., Canada. A member of the WHO Study Group on Mental Health Aspects of the Peaceful Uses of Atomic Energy.
●
Professor Hans Hoff: Director, Psychiatric University Hospital and Neurological Institute, Vienna, Austria. Chairman of the WHO Study Group on Mental Health Aspects of the Peaceful Uses of Atomic Energy.
●
Dr. I. S. Eve: Medical Officer in charge of Questions dealing with Atomic Energy and Health, WHO. Part of the secretariat for the WHO Study Group on Mental Health Aspects of the Peaceful Uses of Atomic Energy.
●
Dr. E. E. Krapf: Chief, Mental Health Section, WHO. Secretary of the WHO Study Group on Mental Health Aspects of the Peaceful Uses of Atomic Energy.
●
Dr. Maria Pfister: Medical Officer, Mental Health Section, WHO. Part of the secretariat for the WHO Study Group on Mental Health Aspects of the Peaceful Uses of Atomic Energy.
●
Albert Einstein: Not part of the Study Group, but mentioned as having expressed concerns about the risk of nuclear power getting out of control.
This timeline and character list capture the main events and individuals involved in the complex discussions surrounding atomic energy and its psychological and health implications, as covered by the provided sources. It also highlights the tension between the promise of atomic energy and the anxieties it provoked, as well as concerns about oversight and control.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Atomic Anxiety: Mental Health and the Atomic Age
Briefing Document: Mental Health and Atomic Energy
Date: October 26, 2023
Subject: Review of Documents Relating to the Mental Health Implications of Atomic Energy and the WHO/IAEA Relationship.
1. Introduction
This briefing document reviews a series of sources addressing the psychological and social impact of atomic energy, along with a specific concern raised regarding the relationship between the World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The sources include parliamentary questions to the European Parliament and a WHO Technical Report on the Mental Health Aspects of the Peaceful Uses of Atomic Energy (TRS 151).
2. Key Themes and Issues
●
The WHO/IAEA Agreement and Concerns about Subordination:
○
A parliamentary question (E-3663/2002) raised concerns about a 1959 agreement (WHA 12-40) between the WHO and the IAEA. This agreement stipulated that WHO's work related to the IAEA's sphere would be "subject to the control and approval" of the IAEA and that procedures for such work would require "a negotiated consensus."
○
The core concern was whether this agreement compromised WHO's independence and ability to carry out its health-related mandate. As stated in the original question, the agreement “stipulated that WHO work and programmes deemed to be related to the IAEA’s sphere of activities would be subject to the control and approval of the latter organisation and that the procedures for and conduct of such work and programmes would be subject to a negotiated consensus (Article 1(3)).”
○
The European Commission, in response, clarified that the agreement was a general framework for cooperation and that it did "not in any way imply a submission of one organisation to the authority of the other." Further, it stated that the agreement “does not affect the impartial and independent exercise by WHO of its statutory responsibilities; nor does it place WHO in a situation of subordination to IAEA.” (Mrs. de Palacio, 2003)
○
The Council stated that it had not discussed the matter raised.
○
Despite assurances, the initial concerns highlighted the potential for conflict of interest and the need to maintain the WHO’s autonomy in health matters, even where they overlap with nuclear issues.
●
Mental Health Impact of Atomic Energy:
○
Unprecedented Challenge: The WHO Technical Report (TRS 151, 1958) emphasizes that the advent of atomic power presents humanity with an unprecedented challenge, with both enormous positive potential and great dangers of misuse. As it notes, “The peaceful development of atomic energy is humanity's greatest adventure, and like all adventure must involve risks.”
○
Direct and Indirect Effects: The report distinguishes between direct mental health impacts (e.g., from radiation damage to the nervous system) and indirect impacts arising from psychological responses to atomic power and its social and economic implications.
○
Psychological Reactions: The study group identified a range of "unhealthy emotional responses" to atomic energy, primarily stemming from anxiety. These include:
* Irrational fears and anxieties related to the destructive potential of atomic weapons. There is a "confusion of fears" stemming from the conflation of peaceful and military applications. The Report states, “the emotions roused in the public by the peaceful uses of atomic energy cannot be separated from fear and anxiety stemming from the nuclear bomb.”
* Irrational hopes for atomic energy as a quick fix for societal problems.
* Denial or ignoring the realities of atomic power.
○
Social Disorganization: The rapid introduction of atomic energy can exacerbate social disorganization through:
* Accelerated industrialization.
* Disruptions to social structures and values.
* Uneven development and economic disparities.
* As the report notes, “irrational emotional states and unsatisfactory human relationships tend to be proportional to social disorganization.”
○
Irrational Phantasies: The study group also noted that, because it cannot be directly experienced, “atomic energy is so gigantic a force emanating from exceedingly small quantities of matter, and cannot be seen, heard, smelt, tasted or felt, it easily provokes irrational phantasies”. It goes on to say, “Such phantasies may well be related to those of early childhood-of magical power, the casting of spells, the working of miracles and so on-“.
●
The Role of the Press:
○
The press plays a significant role in shaping public perception of atomic energy.
○
Press coverage often prioritizes the dangers and anxieties associated with atomic power, sometimes without proper qualification. As the report states, “…the volume of comment on the dangers of atomic energy and anxieties arising therefrom was roughly about five times as great as comment on benefits from and constructive uses of atomic energy.” It also notes there was a “tendency for selection of the more alarming aspects”
○
Sensational headlines and a lack of context contribute to confusion and mistrust.
○
The report noted that “a number of repeated reassuring assertions by atomic experts have subsequently been contradicted by other atomic experts or by later events. “
●
The Authority's Role:
○
The authorities often show the same confusion as the general public regarding atomic energy’s uses.
○
Political leaders often lack scientific backgrounds and can find it hard to handle scientific advice.
○
There is a need to bridge communication gaps between scientists and political leaders.
○
There was "considerable vacillation among the authorities, who lack the guiding principles upon which to base their handling of the situation"
●
Absence of Research: The study group was concerned by the lack of research into the mental health aspects of atomic energy, noting an “extreme paucity of research on the subject” and concluding “up to 1953, nothing had been noted by scientists about the mental health aspects of the peaceful uses of atomic energy.”
●
Public Attitudes and Fears:
○
The public frequently conflates the peaceful uses of atomic energy with the fear of nuclear weapons.
○
There's a deep moral involvement and guilt around nuclear weapons.
○
Many people lack an understanding of the practical applications of atomic energy beyond warfare.
○
Apathy and a mistrust of information sources are also observed in public attitudes.
○
Anxiety is often displaced onto seemingly trivial concerns or substitute reasons. The report notes, "…this is an example of the strong tendency for fear which is denied direct expression to be displaced on to other agencies and, possibly, to become attached to something that is manifestly inappropriate or irrational."
○
People worry about the implications of radiation for future generations.
●
The Nature of Radiation Anxiety:
○
The invisible, intangible, and seemingly uncontrollable nature of radiation contribute to the anxiety. It is described as “invisible, unheard, unsmelt, untasted and unfelt, apparently infinitely powerful, yet springing from an almost infinitely small source.”
○
The fear of the unknown can trigger regressive tendencies and childish beliefs. As the report stated, “the greater the threat, the deeper and more difficult it will be to modify the regression, and there can be no threat that is felt to be more dangerous than that which extends into the future.”
●
Need for Mental Health Tasks:
○
The report emphasizes that propaganda is not an effective solution for mental health issues related to atomic energy. As stated, "the tasks of mental health cannot be served by propaganda."
○
It calls for the creation of local, interdisciplinary teams consisting of a psychiatrist, a psychologist, a sociologist and a journalist to understand local conditions. These teams would engage in education, and advise on safety regulations.
○
The need for education of the public, journalists, and those working with atomic energy is stressed.
○
The report urges consideration of the mental health aspects of atomic energy at all future international scientific conferences on the subject.
3. Key Quotes
●
"The agreement stipulated that WHO work and programmes deemed to be related to the IAEA’s sphere of activities would be subject to the control and approval of the latter organisation..." (European Parliament Question E-3663/2002)
●
"...does not in any way imply a submission of one organisation to the authority of the other..." (Mrs. de Palacio, 2003)
●
"The peaceful development of atomic energy is humanity's greatest adventure, and like all adventure must involve risks." (WHO_TRS_151)
●
"…the emotions roused in the public by the peaceful uses of atomic energy cannot be separated from fear and anxiety stemming from the nuclear bomb." (WHO_TRS_151)
●
“irrational emotional states and unsatisfactory human relationships tend to be proportional to social disorganization.” (WHO_TRS_151)
●
“…the volume of comment on the dangers of atomic energy and anxieties arising therefrom was roughly about five times as great as comment on benefits from and constructive uses of atomic energy.” (WHO_TRS_151)
●
"atomic energy is so gigantic a force emanating from exceedingly small quantities of matter, and cannot be seen, heard, smelt, tasted or felt, it easily provokes irrational phantasies” (WHO_TRS_151)
●
“…this is an example of the strong tendency for fear which is denied direct expression to be displaced on to other agencies and, possibly, to become attached to something that is manifestly inappropriate or irrational." (WHO_TRS_151)
●
“the greater the threat, the deeper and more difficult it will be to modify the regression, and there can be no threat that is felt to be more dangerous than that which extends into the future.” (WHO_TRS_151)
●
"the tasks of mental health cannot be served by propaganda." (WHO_TRS_151)
4. Conclusion
The documents highlight the complex interaction between scientific development, political considerations, and public psychology. The concerns about the WHO/IAEA agreement demonstrate the importance of maintaining organizational independence, especially when addressing potentially controversial issues. The WHO report is insightful in its analysis of the wide-ranging mental health impacts of atomic energy, including its power to trigger deep-seated fears, and the interplay of socio-economic factors. It is clear that an interdisciplinary and community-focused approach is needed to properly address these mental health challenges and that further scientific research is required. Public education and open communication are key for building trust and managing the anxiety associated with the advent of the atomic age.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Atomic Anxiety: Mental Health and the Peaceful Atom
Study Guide: Mental Health and the Peaceful Uses of Atomic Energy
Quiz
1.
What did Resolution WHA 12-40, adopted by the World Health Organization (WHO) in 1959, stipulate regarding the relationship between WHO and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)?
2.
According to the European Parliament documents, does the WHO/IAEA agreement imply that one organization is subordinate to the other?
3.
In what ways did the WHO’s Study Group on Mental Health Aspects of the Peaceful Uses of Atomic Energy indicate that the introduction of atomic power might create unique mental health challenges for humanity?
4.
According to the WHO Study Group, how might the invisible nature of radiation, its association with both medicine and destruction, and its link to childhood fantasies contribute to irrational fears and anxieties?
5.
What did the WHO Study Group find about the public's tendency to separate peaceful applications of atomic energy from its destructive potential?
6.
What did the WHO Study Group find regarding the reporting of atomic energy in the press, and how might this affect the public’s perception of this technology?
7.
According to the WHO study group, how does social disorganization, related to the rate of change in a society, impact mental health?
8.
What did the WHO Study Group discover regarding the presence or absence of references to atomic energy in the delusional systems of psychotic patients?
9.
Why does the WHO Study Group indicate that using “propaganda” as a method to quell fears of atomic energy is unlikely to be effective?
10.
What type of interdisciplinary teams does the WHO Study Group suggest to address mental health concerns related to atomic energy, and what are the responsibilities of those teams?
Quiz Answer Key
1.
Resolution WHA 12-40 stipulated that WHO work and programs deemed related to the IAEA's sphere of activities would be subject to the control and approval of the IAEA, and that the procedures for such work would be subject to a negotiated consensus.
2.
No, according to European Parliament documents, the WHO/IAEA agreement does not imply subordination of one organization to the other. It is intended to establish a framework for cooperation while maintaining each organization's independence and responsibilities.
3.
The study group noted that the introduction of atomic power poses a novel challenge because of its potential benefits and dangers, and that it can cause emotional reactions, potentially through radiation damage or indirectly, through personality reactions to the material effects of radiation, and, additionally, that such a force might trigger strong psychological responses.
4.
The invisible and seemingly limitless nature of radiation can provoke irrational fears by tapping into early childhood fantasies of magic and power. Its association with both medical treatments for serious diseases like cancer and with nuclear weapons can lead to anxious associations and difficulty separating constructive from destructive possibilities.
5.
The study group found that the public generally struggles to distinguish between the peaceful and destructive uses of atomic energy, and that this inability often contributes to fear and mistrust, and that fears related to nuclear bombs are often mixed with those of the peaceful applications.
6.
The press often emphasizes the dangers of atomic energy over its benefits, and tends to select the more alarming aspects for reporting and headlines. This approach can exacerbate public anxiety and confusion.
7.
Social disorganization, which arises from rapid or uneven changes within a society, can lead to irrational emotional states and difficulties in interpersonal relationships. This, in turn, can negatively affect mental health as individuals struggle to cope with the disruptions and loss of stability.
8.
Contrary to expectations, the Study Group found surprisingly few references to atomic energy in the delusions of psychotic patients. This suggests that fears of atomic energy may not be directly incorporated into the mental pathology of patients.
9.
The Study Group suggests that because much of the anxiety about atomic energy stems from mistrust of information sources, any attempt to dispel those fears using propaganda would likely be met with the same level of mistrust and be ineffective.
10.
The Study Group proposes the formation of interdisciplinary teams consisting of a psychiatrist, psychologist, sociologist, and journalist. These teams would be responsible for studying local conditions, investigating related mental health problems, advising on personnel selection, training staff in human relations, educating the public, and maintaining a liaison with local government.
Essay Questions
1.
Analyze the psychological and social factors that, according to the WHO Study Group, contribute to the public's anxieties about atomic energy, paying specific attention to childhood psychology, the nature of radiation itself, and issues around trust.
2.
Discuss the role of media in shaping public perception of atomic energy, as described by the WHO Study Group. What specific patterns in reporting were identified, and what are the potential consequences of these patterns?
3.
Evaluate the argument, made by the WHO Study Group, that the advent of atomic energy poses both a personal and a societal challenge. In what ways does it test humanity’s resilience and adaptation?
4.
Compare and contrast the views of authorities and scientists related to the peaceful and/or harmful uses of atomic energy. What are some of the potential conflicts, and how could these be resolved to ensure public safety and mental wellbeing?
5.
Using the information provided in the source texts, assess how the WHO Study Group addressed practical actions for mitigating the mental health challenges posed by atomic energy, paying particular attention to the suggested research and training programs.
Glossary of Key Terms
●
WHA Resolution 12-40: A resolution adopted by the 12th Assembly of the World Health Organization in 1959, establishing an agreement linking the WHO to the International Atomic Energy Agency. The agreement stipulated the IAEA’s control over related WHO work.
●
IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency): An international organization that promotes the peaceful use of nuclear technology.
●
WHO (World Health Organization): A specialized agency of the United Nations responsible for international public health.
●
Social Disorganization: A process characterized by a breakdown in the norms, values, and social structures of a society, often resulting from rapid social change or disruptions, which contributes to negative mental health outcomes.
●
Displacement: A psychological mechanism where an individual redirects their emotions from an original source to a less threatening target.
●
Free-Floating Anxiety: A generalized and pervasive feeling of unease or apprehension that is not tied to any specific object or situation.
●
Regression: A psychological defense mechanism in which a person reverts to earlier stages of development or thinking in response to stress or anxiety.
●
Psychosomatic Symptoms: Physical symptoms caused by psychological factors, such as stress or anxiety.
●
Interdisciplinary Team: A team of professionals from various fields, such as psychiatry, psychology, sociology, and journalism, who collaborate to address complex problems by bringing different perspectives and expertise.
●
Fall-out: Radioactive material that is deposited from the atmosphere after a nuclear explosion or accident, which the WHO Study Group suggests is often grouped with atomic waste in the public consciousness, despite differing origins.
●
Microcephaly: A medical condition in which the head (and often brain) of a person is abnormally small, which was found in some children exposed to irradiation in utero, and which the WHO study group indicates has potential for mental and visual difficulties.
●
Gene Mutations: Changes to the sequence of DNA. While some mutations are beneficial, some cause undesirable changes, and the WHO study group stresses the impact of radiation on this part of human physiology.
●
Neurotic: A condition marked by excessive anxiety or insecurity, often resulting in disruptive behavior.
●
● Psychotic: A mental condition marked by a loss of contact with reality, often leading to hallucinations or delusions.
Nessun commento:
Posta un commento