ML25343A207

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
IAEA EPR 2025_Risk Communication Culture
ML25343A207
Person / Time
Issue date: 12/01/2025
From: Tanya Smith
NRC/NSIR/DPR
To:
References
Download: ML25343A207 (0)
v • d • e


Text

Creating a New Culture of Radiation Risk Communication Todd Smith, PhD U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Ladies and gentlemen, we interrupt our program...

This picture generated by AI

Opinion polls on nuclear power 2024 National Nuclear Energy Public Opinion Survey, Bisconti Research, Inc., www.Bisconti.com Overall, do you strongly favor, somewhat favor, somewhat oppose, or strongly oppose the use of nuclear energy as one of the ways to provide electricity in the United States?

A majority favor nuclear energy

Opinion polls on nuclear power But myths create bias 2023 National Nuclear Energy Public Opinion Survey, Bisconti Research, Inc., https://www.bisconti.com/blog/public-opinion-2023#_ftnref1

DOE post (2018)

And those myths are perpetuated https://www.facebook.com/NuclearEnergyGov/posts/363210924254997

DOE post (2024)

The evidence does not support the myth https://www.facebook.com/NuclearEnergyGov

Radiation is unique, but not different https://www.orau.gov/rsb/pfaird/03-psychosocial-reactions-01-phases-of-disaster.html

The nuclear community agonizes over its inability to communicate its message to the public.

We hire public relations experts, pollsters, and communication consultants to polish up our messages of reassurance. But [public relations] expertise cannot overcome a basic problem:

Our credibility is continually undermined by ostensibly authoritative statements that no amount of radiation is small enough to be harmless and that a nuclear casualty could kill as many as hundreds of thousands of people. That message we have communicated, and therefore the public and the media are not wholly to blame for the resulting public fear of radiation and all things nuclear. We cannot expect people to believe our assurances of safety so long as we acquiesce in terrifying messages to the contrary.

Theodore Rockwell, Nuclear News (Realism Project, 2004)

Our culture needs to change

Radiation-Specific Communication Challenges (CDC, 2009)

  • How do we address the need for pre-event education without scaring the public and without damaging the reputations of Federal agencies?
  • Fatalism can affect a persons response to radiation-specific messages. When some people hear the term radiation, they assume they are going to die.

Rethink beliefs about public perception CDC. Communication Strategies for Addressing Radiation Emergencies and Other Public Health Crises: Summary of the January 28-29, 2009 Roundtable, 2009.

Because the public can understand radiation Health Effects Message Testing (CDC, 2012)

Perceived Strengths:

  • Participants felt another key message was that low exposures of radiation may result in minimal or no health effects.
  • Its telling you to get inside of a strong building or basement to provide shielding.
  • If there was any good message, it was one that youre best off being inside and I really dont remember exactly, but lets say go in a cellar or someplace thats secure.
  • Exposure to the radiation can be harmful.
  • I guess that not all radiation is bad, depending on the dose.

The public can understand the risks CDC. Health Effects Message Testing: Detonation of Improvised Nuclear Device, Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education (ORISE) and National Center for Environmental Health, Radiation Studies Branch, January 2012.

Radiation-Specific Communication Challenges (CDC, 2009)

  • It is difficult to determine what to advise people to do if no specifics are known about the incident.
  • They dont believe that effective, protective steps can be taken.

Rethink beliefs about protection CDC. Communication Strategies for Addressing Radiation Emergencies and Other Public Health Crises: Summary of the January 28-29, 2009 Roundtable, 2009.

Crisis and Emergency Risk Communication (HHS, 2014)

  • Contrary to what you may see in the movies, people seldom act completely irrationally during a crisis. During an emergency, people absorb and act on information differently from nonemergency situations. This is due, in part, to the fight-or-flight mechanism.
  • Give decisionmakers and others with influence in the community open access to complete scientific information.

Do not withhold information HHS. Crisis Emergency Risk Communication: 2014 Edition, HHS/CDC, 2014.

Health Effects Message Testing (CDC, 2012)

Feedback on Public Messages:

  • Although participants understood the main messages, they expressed that the information they would want to hear during an emergency came too late in the message.
  • If there was any good message, it was one that youre best off being inside and I really dont remember exactly, but lets say go in a cellar or someplace thats secure.
  • The first part of it reminds me of just going back to very informational, and the second part reminds me more of what you would do for an emergency.
  • I marked out the first two sections. Just give me the rest down at the bottom.
  • Just give them the information to keep themselves safe, what to do until further notice.
  • The public wants to know how to be safe The public wants to know how to be safe CDC. Health Effects Message Testing: Detonation of Improvised Nuclear Device, Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education (ORISE) and National Center for Environmental Health, Radiation Studies Branch, January 2012.

Communicating Radiation Risk (EPA, 2008)

3. How much radiation is safe?

There is no known safe amount of radiation.

We always assume that less radiation is better.

Communicating During and After Nuclear Power Plant Incident (FEMA, 2013)

50. How much radiation is safe?

According to radiation safety experts, radiation exposure between 5-10 rem usually results in little to no harmful health effects.

It takes a large dose of radiationmore than 75 remin a short amount of time (usually minutes) to cause immediate health effects like acute radiation sickness.

Tell the public what is safe EPA. EPA-402-F-07-008, Communicating Radiation Risks, Office of Radiation and Indoor Air, June 2008.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Communicating During and After a Nuclear Power Plant Incident, June 2013.

Radiation-Specific Communication Challenges (CDC, 2009)

  • The all hazards approach is problematic to some people. People can rehearse for natural disasters, because they are more familiar with them, but people cannot rehearse for terrorism involving radiation.
  • Communicating about preparedness for radiation emergencies is challenging, because preparedness is not a one-time action. It requires maintenance.
  • Therefore, a stop, drop, and roll communication strategy is not practical.

Rethink beliefs about preparedness CDC. Communication Strategies for Addressing Radiation Emergencies and Other Public Health Crises: Summary of the January 28-29, 2009 Roundtable, 2009.

  • The public wants to know how to be safe The public can develop good habits Crisis and Emergency Risk Communication (HHS, 2014)

Crises by definition create very high levels of uncertainty...During crisis situations, decision makers are often unable to collect and process information in a timely manner.

They rely on established routines for situations that are, by definition, not routine.

HHS. Crisis Emergency Risk Communication: 2014 Edition, HHS/CDC, 2014.

Good Governance Deliberate Good Habit Cultural change is possible

Through deliberation, good policy, and good practice, we can create a culture for effective risk communication.

  • Culture shapes communication Todd Smith, PhD todd.smith@nrc.gov
Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML25343A207&oldid=5536097"