TAM-A - AAHP Special Session: Risk Communication in the Context of Low Dose Health Effects Orlando IV 08:30 - 11:15
|
| Chair(s): Kathy Pryor, Armin Ansari
|
| |
TAM-A.0
08:30 Introduction
|
TAM-A.1
08:45 The Use and Misuse of Effective Dose DA Cool*, ICRP
Abstract: The quantity Effective Dose has been in place for a number of years as the basis for radiation protection recommendations, regulations, and operations. The quantity is not measurable, and is the combination of the measured absorbed dose, a weighting factor for different types of radiation, and a weighting factor(s) for different organs and tissues within the body. Although clearly having relationship with our understanding of radiation risk, the quantity is not a specific measure of risk to any particular individual because the factors involved are derived from averaged information on populations. Notwithstanding the generalized relationship, many uses of effective dose, particularly in communications, are taken without the care necessary to avoid the perception that the number gives accurate information for an individual. Other problems exist in medical applications, where the term has been used as a benchmark for comparing different types of treatment modalities. Finally, situations exist, such as in veterinary medicine, where the term is used in a context where the weighting factors have no meaning or basis. The presentation will explore the development of the Effective Dose concept, some of the key issues in implementation, and the current work within the International Commission on Radiological Protection Task Group on Effective Dose to provide additional insights into the use of the term.
|
TAM-A.2
09:15 Science Is Not Enough EG Daxon*, SINE
Abstract: The genesis of this talk was a question from a four-star general in 1984, "Is it safe?" General Lawson was referring to depleted uranium (DU). I was an Army captain at the time and a newly-minted health physicist. My answer started with, "Sir, there is always a risk of cancer…" That was about as far as I got. At this point, General Lawson made it clear that my answer was "unsatisfactory." He asked the question again, “Is it safe?” My second response was more succinct, "Yes sir." That incident started my quest to find a way to communicate radiation risk in a manner understandable to decision-makers and non-health physicists. Up until the late 1990's, my answer was the same as everyone else's answer – leaders and the public needed more training. While working to develop an Army-wide DU training program, I decided to look at the problem from a different perspective. I assumed that the issue was not with the public but with we health physicists and the practice of health physics. This approach led me to three conclusions. First, radio-phobia was unintentionally initiated and unintentionally fostered by the scientific community and the language of science. Second, radio-phobia is exacerbated by both our radiation safety system and our processes for responding to radiological emergencies. Third, and perhaps more importantly, countering radio-phobia requires fostering the spiritual development of young scientists. My work with Gulf War veterans, anti-nuclear activists and senior decision-makers supported each of these conclusions. The purpose of this talk is to provide the rationale for these conclusions and to present recommendations to improve our ability to communicate health risks to decision-makers and to the public.
|
TAM-A.3
09:45 Say What? Patient-Centered Communication on Benefits and Risks LT Dauer*, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center
Abstract: High-quality justified medical imaging contributes to improved diagnoses, medical treatment selection, overall patient care, and the potential for reducing unnecessary procedures or interventions. There are some patients and parents of patients that worry about the perceived risks of medical imaging, prompting the need for effective benefit and risk discussions with the aim of shared medical decision making. Medical health physicists have a unique role in both direct dialogue with patients and in providing recommendations to medical care providers and professional societies that can be employed in such conversations. Planning and implementing information exchanges requires a consideration of the ethical aspects of radiation protection in medicine, listening skills, as well as general and individualized communication tools. There is a need to develop, employ, and evaluate evidence-based approaches for communicating benefits and risks in the medical setting. It is expected that patient-centered materials, strategies, and interchanges can help improve the quality and effectiveness of these important discourses.
|
TAM-A.4
10:45 Risk Communication in Emergency Response and Recovery JS Wieder*, U.S Environmental Protection Agency
Abstract: "It depends" is NEVER an effective answer when a concerned individual asks, "how much radiation is safe?" Period. "It depends" is particularly problematic during an emergency when levels of concern and stress are at their highest. In an emergency, people want to know what to do and why they need to do it. As scientists, we typically talk about cancer risk to a population. To an individual, who wants to know about their health and the health and safety of their loved ones, risk to a population does not translate well. The uncertainty around health effects at low doses continues to be a source of study and debate among the scientific community. However, in an emergency response our answer needs to be accurate, clear and consistent. If we can agree that for an individual low dose equals low risk, this needs to become ingrained in how we communicate with the public. We have a responsibility to include it in every plan, template, and public communication that we create. Scientific organizations, universities, and government agencies have an incredible opportunity to ease public anxiety about low doses of radiation if the public can hear the same “low dose equals low risk” message from everyone.
|
