when facts fail. talking to people about risks of ionizing radiation clarke

When Facts Fail When Facts Fail --Risk perception, Communication Risk perception, Communication

and Radiationand Radiation

ARPS Conference, Adelaide, 18 October 2010ARPS Conference, Adelaide, 18 October 2010

Simon ClarkeCommunication Director

Key propositions

Radiation professionals need to be ready to communicate about the radiation risks they manage

Scientific facts alone will not always be enough to convince the audience

Emotional (affective) aspects of communication are essential

Psychology and risk

Why is cancer scarier than heart disease, (and radiation is the scariest carcinogen) yet heart disease is more likely to kill us.

Why does nuclear radiation scare people more than solar radiation?

Do you believe pesticides present a serious risk to public

health?

Do you believe people using mobile phones when driving

create a serious risk to public health?

So, how did you go?

Our brains are hard-wired to react to risko The amygdala reacts before the cortex thinkso i.e. fear overcomes reasono Fight, flee or freeze

We make decisions without all the facts

We take mental short-cuts

What are these mental shortcuts?

Framingo ‘Emissions reduction scheme’ or ‘a great big new tax’

o ‘No safe level of radiation’ (e.g. Medical Practitioners Against War)

The fallacy of the small sampleo ‘What one study shows must be true of everything’

Statistical patternso ‘You can’t throw 100 heads in a row’

Risk/benefit trade-offo We place more weight on risk

Risk perception factors

Trust matters; breach of trust matters more

o Process matters

Judgements about risk and benefit

o Benefit perceived, risk played down; and vice versa

Control and choice

o The more we have the safer we feel

Natural versus man-made risk

o We tolerate natural risk, sometimes wrongly

o E.g. many people fear radiation from uranium mines more than they fear radon beneath homes

Familiar or new?

o New risks will worry you more

Risk perception factors

Uncertainty

o The greater the uncertainty, the greater the fear, the stronger the risk feels

Catastrophic or chronic

o Chernobyl versus melanoma

Can it happen to me?

o The risk looks bigger if you think it can happen to you

Personification

o The closer the identification, the greater the perception of risk

Risks to children

o The biggest fear factor

‘Unequal distribution of risk is unfair’

Perceived relative risks ((FischoffFischoff

and and SlovicSlovic))

Perception is reality

Meltdown in credibility and trust

IAEA and risk communication

Inadequate communication increases risk of physical harm beyond actual radiological consequences

Poor communication after Chernobyl accident resulted in:

o Elements of panico Perception of inevitable catastrophic effects of

radiation

e.g. unwarranted increase in number of abortions

e.g. significant increase in depressive illness with consequential / associated physical illness

“All serious nuclear and radiological emergencies have resulted in the public

taking some actions that were inappropriate or unwarranted, and resulted in

significant adverse psychological and economic effects. These have been the

most severe consequences of many radiological emergencies. These effects

have occurred even at emergencies with few or no radiological

consequences and resulted primarily because the public was not provided

with understandable and consistent information from official sources.”

- from IAEA Manual for First Responders to a Radiological Emergency

Case study – Sydney dust storm 2009

Alarmist claims that uranium from OD tailings would harm people

o Likened to James Hardy asbestos

Various agencies analysed the dusto No measurable concentration of uraniumo Minute amounts of other radionuclideso Greatest risk from silicates

Absence of official communicationo Claims left unchallenged may cause uncertainty and

fear

Helping people make healthier choices

‘Mental models’ approach

1) Determine what the ‘experts’ think people need to know to reduce risk (expert mental model)

2) Ask a sample of the audience what they know, what they don’t know, and what they want to know (real world mental model)

A guide for the radiation debate

Individuals and societies do not always act rationally

Demonstrate trustworthy behaviour; use processes to build trust; avoid breaching trust

Share control and enhance choice

Frame messages that respect and account for how people hear and use them

Offer facts in emotionally relevant ways

Reflect audience perceptions, interests, concerns

When Facts Fail When Facts Fail --Risk perception, Communication Risk perception, Communication

and Radiationand Radiation

Simon ClarkeCommunication Director