Risk Comparisons -Reply

[JOHN MACKINNEY <MACKINNEY.JOHN@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV>]

It would be nice if the public understood risk the way
those who work with it do.  But as rational as it is to
you or me, it is completely misunderstood by the public. 
Generally, the public determines risk from a sort of
mystical intuition, based on a wide variety of influences,
not the least of which is the press' treatment of a given
issue.  A listing of how the public perceives risk versus
the actual estimated risk to an individual done by EPA,
shows that people's perception of a risk has little to do
with the actual risk - living near a NPP was listed as one
of the most risky, as was living near a Superfund site, or
hazardous waste dump.  Key variables that segregate the
"risky" from the "non-risky" include voluntary/involuntary,
natural/man-made, familiar/exotic, chronic/catastrophic,
fair/unfair, detectable/undetectable, trusted source/untrusted 
source, and, controlled by individual vs. controlled by
others.

Radiation, sadly, is in a class by itself.  First of all, it
has most of the above going against it: involuntary
(except radon), man-made, exotic, catastrophic (and
chronic), undetectable (at least by the senses), untrusted
source (sorry, but people don't trust you), and controlled
by others (you).  I recall a public meeting of the NRC, at
which a local environmentalist insisted "we're talking about
ionizing radiation, not natural radiation!"  

Second, radiation has a long, somewhat sordid, history.  It
started out at the turn of the century as a kind of
wonderful, limitless, other-worldly power - misunderstood
from the start.  Frederick Soddy told Rutherford, "this is
transmutation!"  The press called nuclear scientists, "The
New Alchemists."  Alchemy and transmutation carry deep,
powerful symbolism, going far back in history.  Radiation
was initially associated with change, and new life.  It was
thought that nuclear power would usher in a Golden Age
when we wouldn't have to work any more; a new Eden. 
Soon, imaginations went wild with what radiation might
do. The energy held within the atom was so great that the
earth could be seen as a "storehouse of explosives", as
Soddy put it.  Radium tonic, toothpaste, hair treatment,
and other cure-alls, were thought to bring perfect health,
restore youth, cure warts and baldness.  By 1930, there
were nearly 100 medicines on the market whose active
ingredient was radium.  But the results were often tragic.

But, scientists were messing with mother nature, and it
began to foster fear with the hope.  Journalists and authors
warned that misuse of nuclear power could destroy the
world, even the universe.  The explosive and mutative
powers were soon fanned by Boris Karloff B-movies, and
sci-fi writers.  Radiation became a power in the hands of
authorities, the new scientists and the government, for
good and for evil.

When the bomb was dropped, the power was confirmed. 
Radiation could blow up the world.  But this knowledge
and power was tightly held in the hands of a few, and it
was cloaked in secrecy.

This is hardly a thorough treatment of the issue, but I
hope it offers some perspective, and hopefully will show
how deep the subject is.  The public is driven by a
subconscious angst that has very deep roots, and it is
closely tied to distrust of the authorities, especially the
AEC and its successors.

Unfortunately, risk communication via risk comparison and
education about radiation has not worked well (although
education does over time).  Experience shows that
comparing radiation risk with risk from smoking, or from
being struck by a piece of falling satellite does not
compel the public. 

EPA uses the following rules for risk communication:
1. Accept and involve the public as a legitimate partner
2. Plan carefully and evaluate your efforts (what are
objectives, who is audience,...)
3. Listen to the publics specific concerns
4. Be honest, frank, and open
5. Coordinate and collaborate with other credible sources
6. Meet the needs of the media
7. Speak clearly and with compassion
These would benefit anyone who deals with the public,
especially honesty and compassion.  

Ultimately, public confidence in risk management is what
is effective, not convincing someone that one risk is less
than another.

(suggested reading on why the public feels the way they
do about radiation: "Images of Nuclear Energy: Why
People Feel The Way They Do," Spencer Weart, IAEA
Bulletin, 3/1991; "Perceived Risk, Trust, and the Politics of
Nuclear Waste," Paul Slovic, James Flynn, Mark Layman,
Science, Vol. 254, December 13, 1991)


>>> Sue M. Dupre
<DUPRE%PUCC.bitnet@vmd.cso.uiuc.edu> Jul 1, 1996 >>>
Good afternoon!  I occasionally see comments on
RADSAFE that it doesn't work to compare the risks of
cigarette smoking and radiation exposure.  I've pre- sumed
that this is because the public puts different weight on
risks that are willfully assumed (e.g., smoking) as compared
to risks that are seen as imposed on them (e.g., radiation
exposure in some circumstances).  Am I correct in
believing this is why these two risks should not be
compared?  Or are there also other factors I haven't
considered?

Assuming that the only problem is the voluntary vs.
involuntary nature of the risks being compared, I think it's
reasonable to compare cigarette risks and radiation risks in
at least one circumstance:  I understand that the risk of
adverse effects from smoking one cigarette in a lifetime is
approximately equal to the risk of adverse effects from 10
mrem radiation exposure (using, of course, the current LNT
model).  I think the typical layperson understands that,
while the risks of a lifetime of smoking are considerable,
the risk of smoking a single cigarette, is essentially
nonexistent.  If so, I think the comparison to a single
cigarette is really very useful in helping people to
understand very small risks.

Regards,
Sue Dupre/Health Physicist/Princeton University
dupre@princeton.edu