1. When Facts FailWhen Facts Fail --
Risk perception, CommunicationRisk perception, Communication
and Radiationand Radiation
ARPS Conference, Adelaide, 18 October 2010ARPS Conference, Adelaide, 18 October 2010
Simon Clarke
Communication Director

2. 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

3. 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?

4. Do you believe pesticides
present a serious risk to public
health?

5. Do you believe people using
mobile phones when driving
create a serious risk to public
health?

6. So, how did you go?
 Our brains are hard-wired to react to risk
o The amygdala reacts before the cortex thinks
o i.e. fear overcomes reason
o Fight, flee or freeze
 We make decisions without all the facts
 We take mental short-cuts

7. What are these mental shortcuts?
 Framing
o ‘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 sample
o ‘What one study shows must be true of everything’
 Statistical patterns
o ‘You can’t throw 100 heads in a row’
 Risk/benefit trade-off
o We place more weight on risk

8. 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

9. 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’

10. Perceived relative risks
((FischoffFischoff and and SlovicSlovic))

11. Perception is reality

12. Meltdown in credibility and trust

13. 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 panic
o 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

14. “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

15. 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 dust
o No measurable concentration of uranium
o Minute amounts of other radionuclides
o Greatest risk from silicates
 Absence of official communication
o Claims left unchallenged may cause uncertainty and
fear

16. 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)

17. 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

18. When Facts FailWhen Facts Fail --
Risk perception, CommunicationRisk perception, Communication
and Radiationand Radiation
Simon Clarke
Communication Director