WPM-B - Special Session - International Collaboration Committee Orlando V 14:15 - 17:10
|
| Chair(s): Alexander Brandl, Nichole Martinez
|
| |
WPM-B.1
14:15 ICRP’s Role in Engaging with the Public Ch Clement*, International Commission on Radiological Protection
Abstract: The International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) is an independent, international organisation that advances for the public benefit the science of radiological protection, in particular by providing recommendations and guidance on all aspects of protection against ionising radiation. For many of ICRP’s 90+ years, the focus has been on providing recommendations and guidance aimed squarely at experts in the field including practitioners, regulatory and standard-setting authorities, and scientists. While providing highly-specialized recommendations and guidance remains central to the work of ICRP, it is increasingly important to make this material more accessible to a wider audience of stakeholders including interested members of the public, more general practitioners, and senior decision-makers. Recognising this need, ICRP is developing materials specifically for this audience delivered primarily through various social media streams and ICRPÆDIA (www.icrpaedia.org), a web resource on the system of radiological protection.
|
WPM-B.2
14:40 Current issues and thoughts for RP professionals regarding Public Understanding on radiation and risk Hi Yoshida*, International Radiation Protection Association
Abstract: Experiences from past emergencies, including the accident at TEPCO’s Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant in 2011 and the following post-disaster recovery, highlight public understanding as one of the most important challenges, and this challenge is common across almost all public interfaces regarding radiation and risk. There is a growing need and interest for the Associate Societies to enhance their programmes in this important area. This is a key but challenging activity which needs further support. IRPA therefore continues a Task Group (TG) activity for Public Understanding based on the results in the previous TG on Public Understanding (2013-2016). The objective of a current TG is broadening from sharing materials to assisting the AS and individual professionals to better understand the challenges of communication, and to be better equipped to meet them in all relevant situations including normal activities, emergencies, and post- accident recovery. We have started on “IRPA Guiding Principles for communication and stakeholder engagement with the public”, in which we have discussed current issues and thoughts for RP professionals regarding Public Understanding on radiation and risk. These will be presented in the special session.
|
WPM-B.3
15:05 Risk Communication and Public Understanding About Radiation: Some Lessons from Nuclear Accidents Ja Lochard*, Nagasaki University
; No Takamura, Nagasaki University
Abstract: Experience of Chernobyl and Fukushima accidents showed that in a context of distrust of authorities and experts and absence of background knowledge of the population about radiation and its associated risk, the communication of general scientific and technical information on the risk of radiation plays a very limited role in helping people to understand the situation they are confronted with and to adopt appropriate behaviour. Experiences in Belarus, Norway and Japan have demonstrated that involving directly affected people in the so-called co-expertise process is an effective way to develop a practical radiological protection culture responding to their concerns. Such a process takes time, requires means of measurement and can only be envisaged with the support of radiological protection experts or professionals who are committed to working sustainably with the population. The purpose of the presentation is to highlight the lessons that can be drawn from the experience of Chernobyl and Fukushima to develop radiological protection culture among the general public.
|
WPM-B.4
15:30 Connecting Science and Life with Trust R Ando*, Ethos in Fukushima
Abstract: The authorities and the experts lost their credibility after TEPCO Fukushima No.1 NPP accident. Loss of trust became a major issue in the affected people’s lives as well. This caused great stress and hardships. Even after the measured radiation levels proved that the radiation exposures from the accident were far lower than initially feared, the scientific data has failed to erase the public’s concern. The experts and the residents of affected areas viewed the situations differently. Experts feel that proving that the doses are small enough is the end of the story, but the residents are left with the sense of inequity as they continue to live in an environment with elevated level of radiation, even if the additional dose is small in the experts’ eyes. Rebuilding the trust that the residents lost is an essential step in recovery.
|
WPM-B.5
16:15 Moving from Lecturing on Data to Communicating Content Al Brandl*, Colorado State University
; Ma Tschurlovits, Vienna University of Technology
Abstract: As scientists and professionals, we have been trained to present (lecture) in front of an audience of similarly instructed peers, we subject our reports and manuscripts to peer-review, and we mentor the next generation of radiological protection professionals to follow in our footsteps and adopt the same methods of information and data transfer we equate with “scientific communication.” The scientific community clearly has developed effective and efficient means to share new details on progress in a given field of study and inquiry. However, current efforts in the scientific community to improve our success in achieving public understanding of the most important and pertinent conclusions we have reached, and in communicating the risks associated with low or moderate exposures to ionizing radiation seem to indicate the realization that we have not been similarly successful in our interactions with the general public who is not as intimately involved in and familiar with our field. It seems we may be getting close to having exhausted our examples, comparisons, and metaphors, yet we might not have fully recognized the potential of the “narrative.” When we speak, write, or engage in discourse, we do so by not only transmitting words, but also symbols and pictures. If our particular choice of words and symbols in those interactions is not congruent with our message, we will not be successful in communicating content. We certainly do not want to lose accuracy and the “science” in our presentation, and we probably do not have to become experts in rhetoric, but we might be better suited in our service to the community and the general public if we were aware of the specific symbols and pictures evoked by our language. The “stories” we tell most often contain a moral, or an intention; we need to recognize that. This presentation intends to provide some examples of rhetorical tools and pitfalls which could help us or prove detrimental in establishing relationships with our communication partners. As we develop these relationships, and display empathy and responsibility towards others in the relationships, our communication of content may be received more effectively.
|
WPM-B.6
16:30 By any Other Name: is "Risk Communication" What we Mean? NE Martinez*, Clemson University
Abstract: Although communication is widely recognized as an essential component of radiation protection, experts often struggle to communicate with the public, both in conveying technical information as well as in fully understanding and taking into account public concerns. This difficulty is acknowledged, and we have a legacy of papers, workshops, and seminars dedicated to strategies for improving our communication, particularly with respect to risk communication. Such strategies include (but of course are not limited to) using plain language and relatable analogies as well as addressing, or at least being aware of, disparities in risk perception. Yet we, with few exceptions, continue to struggle, despite these tips and techniques. Why? Successful communicators generally have good intuition and/or have experience communicating. Neither of these can be taught, but we may find a suitable alternative in developing empathy. Empathy arguably also cannot be taught per se, but it can be fostered through the study of ethical principles and history of the field. We know that effective communication requires mutual trust and understanding, and development of this understanding requires empathy; simply sharing information does not build the trust necessary to develop a positive relationship with the public. This presentation does not suggest a definitive solution for our challenges in communication but reflects on a possible shift in perspective: rather than “risk communication” perhaps we mean “relationship building.”
|
WPM-B.7
16:45 The Role of the International Atomic Energy Agency in Communication of Radiation Safety Principles in Other than Emergency Situations L Dojcanova*, International Atomic Energy Agency
; M Pinak, International Atomic Energy Agency
Abstract: The presentation will address the role of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in communication of radiation safety as related to international standards it is preparing and providing for their applications. It will address key pillars of such communication as being relevant to safety standards, and will introduce selected examples where misinterpretations or misunderstandings are observed.
By utilizing its standards, IAEA assists its Members States to ensure appropriate levels of protection in all situations. The standards are based on the best scientific knowledge available and are prepared to provide an appropriate level of protection for workers, patients and the public. The IAEA safety standards are also based on a conservative approach. This prudent approach is consistent with the precautionary principle. For radiation protection it means that despite the scientific uncertainty related to the radiation induced health effects of doses less than 100 mSv, this should not preclude the establishment of dose limits at values well below those at which such health effects can be proven.
In addition to the preparation of standards, and with recognizing differences in perception of radiation risk and complexity of related science, IAEA also aims to assist users of ionizing radiation in communication of principles of radiation protection with registrants and licensees, workers, patients as well as with members of the public. In communication of such complex scientific concept, IAEA recognizes the need for accuracy, clarity and scientific soundness.
|
