communicating risk: lessons from an environmental journalist dina cappiello houston chronicle...
TRANSCRIPT
Communicating Risk:Lessons from an Environmental
Journalist
Dina Cappiello
Houston Chronicle
NUARTC/TCEQ Air Toxics Workshop
So why is it so difficult??
• Different natures of the media and science
• Interest groups – industry, environmentalists, government – present data in ways that serves their ends, but to lay public appears contradictory/dishonest
• Flaws of the media: mainly looking for conflict, rather than answer
THE NEWSPAPER
• Most readers 5th grade-level understanding of science
• Deadline-driven/immediate
• Want certainty – good/bad, healthy/unhealthy
• Public audience: Chronicle ~ 700,000 readers per day
• Concerned with quality of life questions
SCIENCE
• Specialists, with multiple degrees
• Research takes time, peer review etc.
• Uncertain outcomes, incremental
• Inaccessible to public: audience is other scientists
• Concerned with advancing knowledge, not necessarily solving public dilemmas
Ozone vs. Air Toxics
OZONE- Smog alerts- Clear standard: above
bad, below good- Extensive research- Good communication
among stakeholders
IN THE NEWS
AIR TOXICS- No alerts- No clear-cut standards- Research lacking- Poor communication
among stakeholders
NOT IN MASS
MEDIA
Example 1
Galena Park monitor
- Records some of the highest concentrations of benzene in state. Above state long-term ESL since 1998
- Located across from public school
YET….
School district, public officials and residents were completely unaware of readings
Example 2
TCEQ Mobile Monitoring
State’s own workers, in some heavily polluted areas will not sit in monitoring van
or wear gas masks….
State concludes:
• Monitoring not close enough to neighborhood to make predictions
• Levels for those chemicals measured below short-term ESL, so no health effects expected
• In cases when long-term ESL busted, until recently, state reports said that it only indicated need for further evaluation
RESULT: MIXED MESSAGES, CONFUSION,
DISTRUST
Example 3
CAP MEETINGS- Came out of the 1990 CAA, set up and run
by local industry- Industry touts CAP meetings as
communicating with publicYET…
Residents who have attended for years still are unclear what is in their air and whether
it will harm them
Closing the gap…In Harm’s Way
- Citizen-collected science…science engaged community, became real
- Analyzed existing state data to answer following questions:
1. What is in the air in neighborhoods near chemical plants/refineries?
2. Is it enough for to put people that live there at greater risk?
ESLs
• Part of the communication problem• In some cases, Texas allows levels of air
toxics not allowed in other states• Level not uniform. Some ESLs set at 10-4
cancer risk, others 10-6• When used in permitting, ESLs are
compared to dispersion models from one facility, sometimes not entire site, and never multiple sources
SOLUTION
• Compared to EPA IRIS RfCs set at 10-6 level and calculated cancer risk
• Did not count values not above 1996 NATA level as exceedance
• Compared to stationary monitors in non-industrial neighborhoods
RESULT:Very different picturewww.chron.com/toxic
CRITICISM
72-hour grab vs. annual standard
This is a fair criticism….
However, in all cases our median value was below that detected by TCEQ in all of 2003 and our value fell within range of TCEQ monitoring data…show chart