Misguided beliefs and perception of risk.
Riccardo Bevilacqua
Radiation Safety Expert, PhD in Applied Nuclear Physics | Bridging Nuclear Science & MedTech at Elekta
This is about the images of people crawling out of the wreckage from the tail section of the Azerbaijan Airlines plane crash in Kazakhstan and (not unexpectedly for this newsletter) nuclear technologies. And no, if you know me, you’ll know this won’t be about scare-mongering or fear. Instead, it’s about understanding risk perception.
How do you chose your seat?
Let me ask: where do you think most people prefer to sit on an airplane? If you guessed the front, you’re right. Now, think about this: first class, business class, and premium economy are always positioned at the front of the plane, marketed as premium seating and sold for higher prices. Why? Convenience? Maybe. But there’s another subtle factor at play: perceived status. Being closer to the cockpit feels like being in the “driver’s seat,” even though it offers no measurable benefit. It’s a clever psychological trick, playing on our (often undeclared) self-esteem and making us overlook facts.
Here’s the reality: the tail of the plane is statistically safer in many crash scenarios. But most of us instinctively overlook this in favor of the illusion of exclusivity. Why? Marketing has conditioned us to equate “premium” with “better,” even when it doesn’t align with the facts.
How do we assess risk?
Now, ask yourself: are there other areas in life where this happens? Where we’re guided by perception rather than reality, spending more for what seems better while dismissing the safer, more reliable option?
Take energy, for example. Nuclear power is one of the safest, cleanest, and most reliable energy sources, with dramatically fewer deaths per terawatt-hour compared to fossil fuels or even some renewables. Yet, it’s often shunned in favor of alternatives that are perceived as safer or more “natural.” Just like paying extra to sit near the cockpit, this bias against nuclear energy isn’t rooted in facts—it’s a product of fear-based narratives and clever marketing of other technologies.
领英推荐
We might give up technologies because of unfunded biases
The parallel is clear: we avoid the tail seats and nuclear power for the same reasons. We let irrational beliefs — shaped by psychological tricks and reinforced by marketing, commercial and political agendas — drive decisions that are neither safe, efficient, smart or sustainable. The real cost? Higher emissions, unreliable energy systems, and missed opportunities for sustainable progress.
Where else?
Where else do you see this in life? What other technologies face unnecessary challenges because of marketing biases, unfounded fears, or misled perceptions of risk? Are we missing opportunities for better health, fighting poverty, improving cancer care, ensuring a more sustainable future to our planet? Let’s open the discussion and explore how we can make better, more rational decisions based on facts, not fears.
Read more
About me
I’m passionate about radiation and radiation safety, and I lead these efforts at a top MedTech company. My experience includes working with the European Commission and international physics laboratories, where I developed my expertise in nuclear physics (without causing any explosions!). With a PhD in applied nuclear physics, I’ve published research in peer-reviewed journals and enjoy crafting content that makes complex topics in science, safety, and security accessible and engaging—because everyone loves a good science story!
If you enjoyed this article, subscribe to be notified about what’s coming next!
--
2 个月The Manhattan Project with issues and concerns about the leaking and contamination at places like Hanford have contributed to the negative feelings to nuclear power.
Former Chair of Mineralogy, University of Perugia (retired as of mid-2014)
2 个月I agree with you, Riccardo about the fact that the front seats in an airplane, although more expensive, are not safer. However, having deliberately chosen to sit at the very back of many flights to and from the US (it was Iceland Air at the time!) precisely for the reasons you mentioned, I assure you that the back of the fuselage of a DC-8 stretch or a 747 and even worse, a DC-9, is the noisiest and bumpiest zone of an airplane. Therefore, the promotion of the front seats to first class may not descend solely from the need to make those seats more appetibile despite being less safe. Having said that, I still believe that your reasoning about the choice of energy source is fundamentally correct and that the impact of the very few accidents of nuclear power plants have been much more efficient at creating a general psychosis far exceeding that resulting from the consequences due to the use of fossil fuels to generate power. Goin back to the case in question, from the evidence published so far by independent news agencies, it looks very much like a case of "friendly fire" that took down the plane, rather than that of a mere accident.