SRP Workshop on “Communication of Radiation Risk in the Modern World” (original) (raw)
Related papers
How to Communicate about Radiological Risks? A European Perspective
2015
This working paper series shares research produced as part of the Fukushima Global Communication (FGC) Programme, a research initiative of the United Nations University Institute for the Advanced Study of Sustainability (UNU-IAS). The FGC Programme applies a human security approach to examine impacts of the Great East Japan Earthquake, tsunami and nuclear accident of 11 March, 2011 on people and society, and the challenges of the recovery process in Fukushima. It also focuses on issues of risk and information provision, aiming to improve understanding of how the threat of radiation is perceived, and the specific challenges of risk communication related to nuclear energy. This working paper is an output of the FGC research workshop "Understanding and Communicating Risks Post Fukushima", held in Tokyo on 12-13 November 2015. The workshop brought together international experts to explore the specific challenges of understanding and discussing risks related to nuclear accidents, and identify appropriate and effective forms of risk communication. To find out more, please visit fgc.unu.edu
From 'Risk Communication' to Participatory Radiation Risk Assessment
2015
In the aftermath of the Fukushima nuclear accident, many of the post-disaster responses undertaken by the Japanese government sparked vivid debates and criticisms from the civil society. These concern emergency responses such as the revision of public exposure dose limit, designation of evacuation zones, distribution of iodine tablets, and risk communication as well as mid and long-term policies including radiation dose monitoring, decontamination, waste management, return of evacuees, and health and food monitoring. Convinced that such public agitation derived from their lack of scientific knowledge, the authorities undertook a strategy to enhance their communication on radiological risk and its health effects. In this paper, we attempt to challenge the traditional notion of “risk communication” which considers that the concerned risks have been clearly defined by the scientific community and that the problem simply remains in communicating them “rightly” to the population. We argu...
Education in Radiation Protection and Radiation Risk Communication to the Public
RAD Conference Proceedings, 2016
The paper summarizes basic radiation protection aspects important for risk communication to the public in the case of radiation/nuclear accidents or radiological attacks. The present system of radiation protection quantities and units, as well as the associated terminology, is too complicated for those who are not professionally engaged in the field but who need to have some basic understanding of how to protect themselves and others against the harmful effects of ionizing radiation. Emphasis is placed on the education and training of members of the general public in order for them to acquire some basic understanding of radiation protection. This is important for achieving better cooperation and coordination between the public and the first responders as well as relevant authorities and stakeholders during radiation or nuclear emergency situations, where the main goal is the minimization of the consequences of such events in terms of personal exposure and the radioactive contamination of the environment.
What happens when radiological protection or nuclear safety officials get together with media professionals to talk about public communication on ionizing radiation risks? Do they have common views of the challenges and ways to meet these? This practical article reports on dialogue workshops organized by the EAGLE project in four European countries (France, Poland, Romania, and Slovenia). Common findings are classed and presented by themes, including inter alia: crisis versus everyday communication; mediated versus direct communication; sources, actors, roles and responsibilities; language and format; trust and confidence, balance in reporting and development of risk culture; nuclear industry promotion versus citizen-centered risk communication. The article also presents reflections from an expanded international workshop (RICOMET, June 2015). It echoes the participants in calling for a platform for ongoing dialogue between information sources and transmitters, in the interest of building solid relationships, risk culture and public understanding on ionizing radiation.
International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction , 2020
Public communication is one of the most challenging aspects of nuclear emergencies. The overall objective of this study is to analyse how and to what extent are European Member States prepared to communicate in case of nuclear or radiological emergencies. The study uses a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods: on-line surveys, round table discussion, workshop and consultations. The data for the study were collected from September 2017 to June 2018. Results show that nuclear safety authorities and other authorities or organisations responsible for defining and implementing public communication requirements during emergencies are significantly challenged as information and communication technologies continue to advance and public expectations continue to rise. While public information needs are largely met, many countries fail to respond to the demands of the current social media landscape, the level of stakeholder engagement and cross-border collaboration in the field of communication. Good practices are collected and may serve as an inspiration for authorities in their public communication plans in order to fill the communication gap in practice.
How to be an effective risk communicator--Part 1
Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine, 1996
special committee on radiobiological effects of ionizing radiation (REÕR)held a session focused on the importance of tailoring risk communication to best meet the needs of adversarial groups, gov ernment officials, patients, and broad-based coalitions. compiled the highlights of their presentations into a two-part commentary. Part I explores the issues of communicating risk to patients and government officials. Part II, which will appear in next month 'sNewsline, explores com munication with adversarial groups and broad-based coalitions.
Journal of Radiation Research, 2015
Herein we summarize the public health actions taken to mitigate exposure of the public to radiation after the Fukushima accident that occurred on 11 March 2011 in order to record valuable lessons learned for disaster preparedness. Evacuations from the radiation-affected areas and control of the distribution of various food products contributed to the reduction of external and internal radiation exposure resulting from the Fukushima incident. However, risk communication is also an important issue during the emergency response effort and subsequent phases of dealiing with a nuclear disaster. To assist with their healing process, sound, reliable scientific information should continue to be disseminated to the radiation-affected communities via two-way communication. We will describe the essential public health actions following a nuclear disaster for the early, intermediate and late phases that will be useful for radiological preparedness planning in response to other nuclear or radiological disasters.
Radioprotection
Communication with mass media during and after a nuclear emergency presents both a challenge and an opportunity for emergency management. The challenge lies with the different motivations and types of process applied by mass media and emergency management; the opportunity arises from the power of mass media to reach out to an audience with information important for compliance with protective actions. This article summarises recommendations for improved media communication by nuclear emergency management professionals. Recommendations address both the traditional and new media, and are the result of empirical and qualitative research conducted in the context of the FP7 PREPARE project, including: (i) a media content analysis of newspapers articles reporting about Fukushima (N = 1340); (ii) a content analysis of tweets about Fukushima (N = 914); and (iii) a qualitative approachround table discussions with stakeholders (N > 100) involved in communication about nuclear emergencies. Results show that although challenging, nuclear emergency communication can be improved by using mass media and developing skills, training and resources during the preparedness phase of a nuclear emergency cycle. Some general recommendations and practical advice for communication with media is given.
Importance of risk communication during and after a nuclear accident
Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, 2011
Past nuclear accidents highlight communication as one of the most important challenges in emergency management. In the early phase, communication increases awareness and understanding of protective actions and improves the population response. In the medium and long term, risk communication can facilitate the remediation process and the return to normal life. Mass media play a central role in risk communication. The recent nuclear accident in Japan, as expected, induced massive media coverage. Media were employed to communicate with the public during the contamination phase, and they will play the same important role in the clean-up and recovery phases. However, media also have to fulfill the economic aspects of publishing or broadcasting, with the ''bad news is good news'' slogan that is a well-known phenomenon in journalism. This article addresses the main communication challenges and suggests possible risk communication approaches to adopt in the case of a nuclear accident. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2011;7:388-392. ß 2011 SETAC