Re: loosing, Tooth Fairy Project

["Dhr. Van rooyen" <rooyen@aib-vincotte.nl>]

Ruth,

I again want to react on the risk communication issue which Sandy brought
forward.

When I wrote the previous message, I did not have the 'anti-members of the
public' on my mind, but was thinking of the general public who are willing
to listen to an expert's vision. 

As long as there are some in the public who do want to make drama and put
'wood on the fire' as we use to say in our country, some media (not all)
will take advantage.
The last couple of years I have seen a change in television news. 
Reality television seems to be the only thing left. 
Even those stations which in the past used to cover stories reliable
without to much sensation, nowadays sent out a reporter as soon as possible
to the drama scene. The public eats it like fast food.  

Recently after the explosion at a firework depot all the big television
stations had a live broadcast the same evening. And all these stations did
have the 'experts' available for comment. 
They are presented as experts and the reporter talks to them as such. 'you
know everything, you are the specialist' while most of these experts did
not have at that moment the faintest idea what had happened exactly. 
They reacted on the speculations and even already suggested all kinds of
possible causes. This kind of communication keeps the drama going. 
There certainly was a lack of expertise of what the impact of their words
did have. They did not have any experience of dealing with the press and
probably did not have any training. 
Because several amateur videos of the explosion were available it stirred
up the show completely. 
Together with the interviews of wounded victims (still in shock) it really
became the realty-show of the year. And this television drama lasted more
than week. 
And let us not forget that the first priority in a emergency is the
emergency and not the investigation. 

If the 'real' expert doesn't tell his story, in a objective way, the only
story which reaches the public will be a anti-story by a so called expert. 
And even in a day to day situation an expert communicates with non-experts
on his expertise. I experienced that I did change my way of communication
on risk subjects, because in the beginning I did not have a clue of the
impact of my words. 
So I believe risk-communication is a important subject, also for the
radiation expert. 

I agree with you that it is a nuisance to be confronted with people who can
only utter 'anti'-thoughts and are not reasonable. The only goal these
people have they have is stir up the drama, which is not really a
respectfull way of communication. It is not easy I know, but I believe the
best way to confront them is to keep the head cool and do not react on
their drama.

On the other hand I do respect that others may have a different opinion,
and I do respect that there is right of information. 

So I am glad that a subject like risk communication gets some attention
nowadays. 
Especially for those circumstances when an emergency situation has arisen
and the expert is forced to communicate with non-experts during stressful
conditions. 

Paul

At 08:49 4-8-00 -0500, you wrote:
>I read this "eye-opener," and it certainly didn't tell me anything I haven't
>heard many many times from people who are trying to tell me how to
>communicate with the public.  You know: talk in plain language, etc.  The
>problem is not, I insist, communication.  When the word "sesquipedelian"
>appears in the morning newspaper comic strips (Nine Chickweed Lane, Albuq.
>Journal, Aug.3, 2000), and when I can find "rem," "becquerel," etc. in
>Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, I don't think there is a problem with
>language as such.  The antinukes' insistence that scientists don't know how
>to talk to "the public" is a cover story for the firm anti-nuclear stance
>that they are not going to believe anything they don't want to believe, not
>going to be rational if they don't feel like it, not going to engage in
>reasoned discussion, not going to admit anything, and it's all under the
>guise of "if you only knew how to talk to us everything would be OK, but you
>don't, so keep on trying."
>
>Ruth Weiner
>ruth_weiner@msn.com
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Dhr. Van rooyen <rooyen@aib-vincotte.nl>
>To: Multiple recipients of list <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
>Date: Friday, August 04, 2000 3:30 AM
>Subject: Re: loosing, Tooth Fairy Project
>
>
>>To radsafers who are willing to open up their eyes,
>>
>>and with an interest for the subject 'radiation protection and public
>>information'
>>I suggest to download IRPA 10- Eye Openers number EO7 (pdf file)
>>
>>http://www.oita-nhs.ac.jp/%7Eirpa10/EO/index.html
>>
>>
>>Paul van Rooijen
>>Manager HSE
>>AIB-Vinçotte Nederland BV, Postbus 6869, 4802 HW Breda ,
>>The Netherlands
>>tel ++31 (0) 76 579 11 54
>>fax ++31 (0) 76 587 47 60
>>e-mail rooyen@aib-vincotte.nl
>>
>>
>>At 15:30 3-8-00 -0500, you wrote:
>>>Definitely. During my attendance at this week's Nuclear Energy
>>>Institute Health Physics Forum, one primary factor discussed during
>>>the workshop on Risk Communication, was the nuclear utility executive
>>>management's lack of understanding the public, how to talk to them,
>>>how to deal with them, and to address the public's primary concerns
>>>and perceptions.
>>>
>>>In order to determine appropriate counter,measures, one must first
>>>identify the root causes. There are many. We have only identified the
>>>tip of the iceberg. To be successful, we need to address all of the
>>>primary root causes, honestly and candidly, and where there are real
>>>issues, we need to effectively mitigate them.
>>>
>>>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>Sandy Perle Tel:(714) 545-0100 / (800) 548-5100
>>>Director, Technical Extension 2306
>>>ICN Worldwide Dosimetry Division Fax:(714) 668-3149
>>
>>>ICN Biomedicals, Inc. E-Mail: sandyfl@earthlink.net
>>
>>>ICN Plaza, 3300 Hyland Avenue  E-Mail: sperle@icnpharm.com
>>
>>>Costa Mesa, CA 92626
>>>
>>>Personal Website:  http://www.geocities.com/capecanaveral/1205
>>>ICN Worldwide Dosimetry Website: http://www.dosimetry.com
>>>
>>
>>
>>************************************************************************
>>The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
>>information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
>
>
>
>************************************************************************
>The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
>information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
>
>

************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html