My first experience learning about radiation was at high school, during physics and chemistry classes. Back then in the 1970s, radiation (alpha, beta and gamma) sources were used by schools routinely as a valuable and hands-on experience for students to learn about the fundamentals of radiation.

Over the years, I have had the opportunity to visit schools and conduct experiments with other types of radiation sources, using the latest radiation detectors, to educate students about the natural occurrence of radiation in our environment as well as the medical uses of radiation. There have been several teachers who have reached out for assistance, which is very much welcomed.

But my experience more recently has perhaps, unsurprisingly, revealed that contemporary science teachers are often ill-informed about radiation, its risk and the resources available to them. Some also spruik their own anti-nuclear sentiment.

Unfortunately, that lack of experience and education can manifest in misguided fear.

A story that comes to mind is, when working as a radiation regulator, I received a call from a high school with a somewhat panicked science school teacher concerned about having radiation demonstration sources on campus, and asking if they could return it to my office.

Despite my explanation that the items in question were low-dose radiation sources specifically for education purposes, that they posed no danger and that, in fact, their radioactivity was similar to smoke alarms, their fear persisted.

I suggested that if they really wanted to remove them, they could bring them to our offices. However, the teacher in question did not want the sources in their car, or anyone else’s as they were “dangerous”! So, my offer to collect the item was graciously accepted.

Part of the blame for this teacher’s fear lies at the feet of radiation professionals such as me, and the wider radiation community, for failing to better communicate and educate the teachers and the public in general about radiation basics, and contextualising radiation risk with other daily activities (a plane flight from Adelaide to Sydney will give you the same dose of radiation as a chest X-ray – approx. 10 microsieverts).

Part of the blame also rests squarely with radiation policymakers and governments who require that we regulate the smallest of radiation doses which implies radiation must be dangerous – because it’s regulated.

Most public awareness of nuclear radiation comes through the prism of our experiences. Children learn through television shows such as The Simpsons, and superhero movies, that radiation can mutate you.

Of course, the older generations have seen the devastation of A-bombs and nuclear accidents such as Chernobyl and Fukushima. The radiation health effects of these events are never discussed in the public domain in any depth. Rather, there is the impression that the Chernobyl and Fukushima disasters resulted in a huge number of radiation-related deaths. In actual fact, the number of deaths associated with acute radiation sickness have been relatively small for both Chernobyl (<100) and Fukushima (1).

The influx of school demonstration radiation sources being returned to the South Australian Environment Protection Authority, and the sheer number of questions being asked by teachers around safety, prompted the EPA in 2017 to produce a fact sheet to try and alleviate fears. It was crucial to emphasise that these sources emit extremely low levels of radiation and pose no significant health risks.

Radiation is used widely in all jurisdictions. There are thousands of radiation sources used across the medical, dental, veterinary, industrial, agricultural, defence, science, and mining sectors to name a few. There are even more people licensed to use these sources.

In SA, there are approximately 1000 companies with around 10,000 radiation licences and registrations alone.

With South Australia central to AUKUS deal for nuclear submarines and the associated economic benefits it will bring, we need an urgent refocus on radiation education in schools to help inspire the next generation of radiation professionals.

We need to ensure the South Australian science curriculum is fit for purpose and values radiation and nuclear as a standalone topic and ensure we have dedicated and knowledgeable STEM educators teaching this material from primary school.

Outside of the medical sector, and even with the number of radiation licensed people to date, there is still a critical shortage of qualified radiation professionals, particularly across the radiation chemistry and biology as well as radiation protection (regulatory and safety) areas. These shortages are a risk to our sovereign capability and may slow our further advancement into the future nuclear fuel cycle.

Last year, CRREI commenced its Graduate Certificate in Radiation Management to fill the need for qualified radiation management professionals in workplaces and sites such as mining, industrial, science, regulatory and security sectors. This certificate focuses on providing graduates the knowledge and skills to perform as radiation safety officers in a wide range of occupational settings.

Together with our national and international partners including the International Atomic Energy Agency we are striving to advance CRREI as a regional hub for education on nuclear technologies and their applications to satisfy industry, government and research demand.

Associate Professor Tony Hooker is the director of the Centre for Radiation Research Education and Innovation at the University of Adelaide.