Special Submission RADIATION EDUCATION, RISK COMMUNICATION, OUTREACH, AND POLICY (PROGRAM AREA COMMITTEE 7)—SESSION Q&A Questions for Drs. Locke & Boyd Q: How can we successfully communicate with members of the public the risks perceived as large that either do not exist or are extremely small, specifically cell phone radiofrequency emission and general-use, full-body x-ray security screening systems? Locke: One way to approach “risk communication” is to remember that the “risk” part of this term is comprised of two pieces—hazard and outrage. By hazard, I mean the technical component of risk, which usually is based on a risk assessment that incorporates the most up-to-date credible science. I think your question refers to this technical component when you say that risks are extremely small or do not exist. As scientists, we are often most comfortable with this piece. The public, however, also considers “outrage” in assessing risk. The outrage piece of risk has more of a social and perceptual basis and can depend upon things like the voluntariness of the risk, its “dread factor” (remember that ionizing radiation has a high dread factor), its familiarity, and the control, or lack of control, over it.
It is very important to remember that our communications must accommodate both of these pieces of the risk equation. As scientists and experts, we can seek to explain clearly, thoughtfully, and openly what science and technology can say about a particular hazard. However, we must also listen to the public because risk communication is a two-way street. It is important to learn why members of the public perceive these risks differently so we can have a productive conversation with them. For example, it could be that the worry about an x-ray security screening system reflects the possibility that the system could be poorly calibrated, poorly maintained, or poorly operated in such a way that a high dose of radiation might be released from it. While this possibility might be remote, if we know this is the reason for perceiving x-ray screening as a high-risk activity, we can address these issues.
■■
0017-9078/15/0 Copyright © 2014 Health Physics Society DOI: 10.1097/HP.0000000000000245 www.health-physics.com
283
Copyright © 2014 Health Physics Society. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
It is very important to remember that our communications must accommodate both of these pieces of the risk equation. As scientists and experts, we can seek to explain clearly, thoughtfully, and openly what science and technology can say about a particular hazard. However, we must also listen to the public because risk communication is a two-way street. It is important to learn why members of the public perceive these risks differently so we can have a productive conversation with them. For example, it could be that the worry about an x-ray security screening system reflects the possibility that the system could be poorly calibrated, poorly maintained, or poorly operated in such a way that a high dose of radiation might be released from it. While this possibility might be remote, if we know this is the reason for perceiving x-ray screening as a high-risk activity, we can address these issues.
■■
0017-9078/15/0 Copyright © 2014 Health Physics Society DOI: 10.1097/HP.0000000000000245 www.health-physics.com
283
Copyright © 2014 Health Physics Society. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
