Bridging Radiation Risk Perception in Indonesia: A Literature Study Comparing Natural and Artificial Radiation Sources Based on UNSCEAR 2024

Public exposure to ionizing radiation originates from natural and artificial sources, yet public risk perception often diverges from scientific dose evidence. The UNSCEAR 2024 Report (Volume II, Annex B) provides the latest comprehensive global assessment, confirming an average annual effective dose from natural sources of approximately 3.0 mSv, with radon and thoron inhalation contributing 1.8 mSv. In contrast, routine exposures from nuclear facilities and artificial sources typically remain in the µSv range. Nevertheless, the public frequently shows disproportionate concern toward nuclear facilities while underestimating risks from NORM in mining, coal-fired power plants, and geothermal operations. This perception gap poses a strategic challenge for BAPETEN in oversight and public health protection. This narrative literature study synthesizes UNSCEAR 2024 data with risk communication literature, selecting 23 documents, regulations, and peer-reviewed articles from 2014 to 2026 to examine the mismatch between actual dose levels and psychosocial responses. Effective risk communication requires evidence-based, proportionate strategies and multi-stakeholder collaboration. The proposed framework emphasizes data transparency, contextual radiation literacy, and integration of NORM regulation into national systems. Implementation is expected to build public trust, improve evidence-based decision-making, and support sustainable radiation risk management in Indonesia. Keywords: risk communication, NORM, artificial radiation, public perception, UNSCEAR 2024