Radiation Risk Communication with The Radiation Risk Communication with The News Media: Emergency Response for a News Media: Emergency Response for a

Radiological IncidentRadiological Incident

Workshop Presented at the 35th Annual Meeting

of the Australasian Radiation Protection Society (ARPS) Adelaide, Australia October 2010

George Anastas, P.E., CHP, DEE, FHPS, FARPS

11021 BridgePointe, NEAlbuquerque, NM 87111

USA

Disclaimer• The views expressed herein reflect only the

views or opinions of the author. These views or opinions may or may not represent or reflect the views or opinions of any past, current or future employer(s), my wife, children, Grand Children or colleagues.

ZxÉÜzx TÇtáàtá? Albuquerque, New Mexico October 2010

Never Forget This!!!

Before you make a statement, you must consider how the statement would look in a news story or on television!

Key References

World Health Organization (WHO) has prepared three valuable documents:Effective Media Communication during Public Health Emergencies (2005)– A WHO Handbook– A WHO Field Guide– Summary Wall Chart

Key References (cont)

Report of the Kemeny Commission on the Accident at Three Mile Island

And I have these four references here on a CD, if anyone wishes to copy the files let me know.

RISK

A Threat of loss, real or perceived, to that which we value (life, health, security, family, children, order, …)

– Remember, perception is reality!

Communication

The exchange of information.

Communication is Interactive

Fundamental Basis of Risk Communication

Accurate, understandable and prudent Risk Communication is difficult and must be practiced, video taped and reviewed by non-echnical personnel in order to assure

continuous improvement.Anticipation, preparation and practice (Source: VC)Tell the truth and keep it simple!

News Media (WHO Handbk)e must appreciate and meet the needs of thews media in order to engage in effective risk

ommunication. News media includeewspapers, magazines, television, radio and theternet. Understanding what the news mediaant from a story and what they are likely to askelps to define what will best meet their needsnd your needs as a Risk Communicator. Theews media can be valuable allies during anmergency. Conversely the news media …

News Media (Cont.)What do the news media typically do?

gather and spread information;fulfill their commercial obligations (for example to make money for their owners or shareholders);compete with one another for news and ratings;act as a public “watchdog”; (GA, in an emergency does this really help???)search out interesting, newsworthy or sensational stories;inform and educate;interpret information;set public agendas or reflect what is already on the public agenda;attract listeners/viewers;reach large numbers of people; and

i i t

News Media (Cont.)ow can the news media help during an emergency?

nform and educate;get the story out quickly;each major target audiences;ally support;unction as a public watchdog (for example by calling into question

actions or recommendations); (GA, does this help?)help prevent undue fear and anxiety;provide accurate and needed information;correct erroneous information;encourage appropriate behaviours; andcalm a nervous public.

News Media (Cont.)What are news editors and producers typicallyking for in a story?

stories that increase ratings and profits by attracting arge numbers of readers, viewers or listeners;stories that reflect the agendas or serve the interests of he editors, owners or publishers of media organizations;stories that help people understand issues so they can make informed choices;stories that serve the public interest; andstories that advance the personal career of the reporters.

Genesis

When people are stressed or upset, they often have difficulty hearing, understanding, and remembering nformation and typically can only process 3 messages at a time.

Thus the genesis of 3, 9 and 27.

THE RULE FOR ORAL RESPONSE, 3, 32, 33

(Source: VC, Modified by GA)

Use no more than three (3) messagesUse no more than 32 (9) seconds to deliver he three (3) messagesUse no more than 33 (27) words to deliver he three (3) messages

The Three Messages (Source VC)

Compassion (I understand your concerns.)

Conviction (We are taking all necessary steps to minimize any impact, to determine he cause and to hold persons accountable.)

Optimism (We are taking all steps to assure that this will not occur again!)

Example of 3, 9, 27

“The number of casualties is more thany of us can bear ultimately. And I believe we will become stronger.ronger economically, politically, and most mportantly, emotionally.”

ayor Giuliani, 9/11/2001

77 Questions

See WHO Handout“Journalists are likely to ask six questions n a crisis (who, what, where, when, why, how) that relate to three broad topics: (1) what happened; (2) what caused it to happen; (3) What does it mean?”

Generalizations Regarding Interviews

What is safe educate protective actions whoResponder

What is safe, what is harmful, effect on children, effect on environment, safeguards

c

Is the situation dangerous, is it under control, what can go wrong, headlines, more viewers, sell more newspapers

s/Media

What is safe, what is the elected official’s position, education, constituents concerns

ed OfficialElements of Concernanization

Risk Communication

Pay attention to verbal and non-verbal communicationn high stress situations non-verbal

communication more important Tell the truthKeep it simplePay attention, listen and observe/watchDisseminate the factsCredibility of message sender

Risk Communication (addition)

f the status of the situation is uncertain incomplete or conflicting initial information or

uncertainty in the particulars), a reasonable approach for the Initial communication would be o err on the conservative and add the statement hat the situation is being closely monitored by

experts and they are providing periodic status updates, later it can be indicated that the situation was not as bad as was initially thought

allmarks of Effective Radiological isk Communication (Key Points!)PrepareListenUnderstand the person(s) asking the questions. What are their concerns?Verbal and non-verbal communicationProvide a message, receive feedback, clarifyCredibility of the message sender

Hallmarks of Effective Radiological Risk Communication (cont.)

Be careful of the words that you useDo not believe that everyone knows what you knowNo jargon (1 X 10-5, milli Sieverts, femto Becquerels) , do not switch units (micro SV to milli SV, GA uses mrem for everything)Do not use the label acceptable risk (YUK!)ABSOLUTELY) No Hormesis

Accurate information (check and independently

The Fundamental Question

What is the risk of exposure to radiation?

Place Risk in PerspectiveRadiation dose received during 14 hour flight rom Los Angeles to

Sydney = ~ 30 micro SV (3 mrem)Annual natural radiation dose to an individual in Australia = ~ 1560 micro SV (156 mrem)Total (natural + medical) annual radiation dose o George Anastas in Albuquerque, New Mexico,

USA (6,000 feet, U, Rn) = 6000 micro SV (~600 mrem) (note: I don’t receive a lot of medical related dose.)

Place Risk in Perspective (cont.)

Typical Effective Radiation Dose from Single Diagnostic X Ray-Single Exposure

1200/120Abdomen800/80Hip700/70Pelvis (AP)

Effective Dose (μSV/mrem)

Examination

Place Risk in Perspective (cont.)

Radiation Dose from Complete Procedure

7500-57000/750

Angioplasty (heart study)

8000/800CT chest

7000/700Barium Enema (10 images, 37 sec. fluoroscopy)

Effective Dose (μSV/mrem)

Complete Examinations

Place Risk in Perspective (cont.)

Typical Effective Radiation Dose from Nuclear Medicine Examinations

18,500/1,850Tumor/Infection using Ga-87)

11,800/1,180Heart (using Tl-201)

4200/420Bone

Effective Dose (μSV/mrem)

Nuclear Medicine Scan

Place risk in Perspective (Cont.)

Patient Doses from Dental X Ray Examinations

11/1 1Panoramic

30/3.0Bitewing

15/1.5Full mouth (18 exposures)

Effective Dose (μSV/mrem)Exam

THANK YOU ARPANSAMan's Exposure To Ionising Radiation

Source Of Exposure Exposure/Yr Natural Radiation (Terrestrial and Airborne) 1.2 mSv Natural Radiation (Cosmic radiation at sea level) 0.3 mSv Total Natural Radiation 1.5 mSv Nuclear Fallout – (From atmospheric tests in 50's & 60's) 0.02 mSv

Chernobyl (People living in Control Zones near Chernobyl) 10 mSv

Cosmic Radiation Exposure of Domestic Airline Pilot 2 mSv

Exposure per EventSeven Hour Aeroplane Flight 0.05 mSvCh t X R 0 04 S

• Health Risks Arising From Low Doses of Ionising Radiation

Effect Risk Normal IncidenceRisk of cancer from 1 mSv of

Radiation 1 in 17,000* 57 in 17,000**Risk of severe hereditary

ffect from 1 mSv of radiation 1 in 77,000 1,770 in 77,000

Age standardized lifetime probability for whole population.*Age standardized incidence rate for whole population (not necessarily atal).The risk of obtaining cancer from 1 mSv of radiation exposure is equivalent o the risk of getting cancer from smoking approximately 100 cigarettes.

Risk Communication:Emergency Response for a

Nuclear IncidentBest Reference for a REAL ACCIDENT is he Report of the Kemeny Commission on he Accident at Three Mile Island.Required reading.Tells what communication was effective and what communication was not effective, and why the communication was not effective.

Kemeny Report

The response to the emergency was dominated by an atmosphere of almost total confusion. There was lack of communication at all levels.Many key recommendations were made by ndividuals who were not in possession of accurate information, and those who managed he accident were slow to realize the significance

and implications of the events that had taken place. Page 17

Kemeny Reportn addition to all the other problems with the

NRC, we are extremely critical of the role the organization played in the response to theaccident. There was a serious lack of communication among the commissioners, hose who were attempting to make the

decisions about the accident in Bethesda, the ield offices, and those actually on site.

This lack of communication contributed to the confusion of the accident. Page 21

Kemeny ReportAlthough there were designated channels of communicationand specific responsibilities assigned for federal agencies responding to the radiological emergency at TMI (for example,nteragency Radiological Assistance Plan), the

existence of these channels and responsibilities was generally unknown to many high-level ederal officials. In several instances during the

course of the accident, some federal agencies were unaware of what other federal agencies were doing in providing support personnel and resources. Page 36

Kemeny Report

Clearly defined roles and responsibilities for operating procedures and practices must be established (and practiced, GA) o ensure accountability and smooth (credible and accurate, GA) communication. Page 69

Conclusion

Accurate, understandable and prudentRisk Communication is difficult and must be practiced, video taped and reviewed by non-echnical personnel in order to assure

continuous improvement.

References

*http://www.trmc.aec.gov.tw/eng/nat_foreword.htmRADIATION EXPOSURE FROM MEDICAL

DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING PROCEDURES at http://hps.org/documents/meddiagimaging.pdfBallinger PW. Merrill's atlas of radiographic positions

and radiologic procedures. 5th ed. Vol. 1. St. Louis: CV Mosby; 1982 http://hps.org/hpspublications/articles/dentaldoses.html

References (Cont.)

*http://www.epa.gov/rpdweb00/understandcalculate.html*Report of the President’s Commission on The Accident at Three Mile Island, October 30, 1979, available at http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/blogsfreakonomics/pdf/PresCom.pdf*Tell It Like It Is, Peter Sandman, IAEA Bulletin 47/2

References (Cont.)Any and all articles and papers by Dr. Vincent T. Covello, Center for Risk Communication, 29 Washington Square West, Suite 2A, New York, New York 10011 and Presentations at the HPS 2010 Mid Year Meeting in Albuquerque and at he April 2010 Meeting of the NCRP in Rockville

ARPANSA at http://www.arpansa.gov.au/radiationprotection/factsheets/is_rad.cfm#7

THE END